HOME | DD

DeathSongMP3 In reply to D-Willy45 [2018-10-22 14:52:01 +0000 UTC]

Tapas

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

dyingman404 In reply to edupskyla [2022-08-28 13:05:54 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

VeiledAssassin In reply to edupskyla [2021-11-26 15:03:24 +0000 UTC]

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Shimbom In reply to edupskyla [2019-01-11 08:48:51 +0000 UTC]

.....Really??? Why here??

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ZeKarl In reply to edupskyla [2018-01-15 07:15:15 +0000 UTC]

Oh no! What do I do? So frightening. Ahh!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

moonfae137 In reply to ecuasage [2020-10-04 00:54:57 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

nyxeka In reply to ecuasage [2016-10-29 16:24:14 +0000 UTC]

1. What is she missing?

2. I believe this is a character from his comic (Ghostblade) as it says in the description. If you'd go through this comic, you would be able to understand the context of this, but from no context I get the idea that this is some sort of priestess warrior-type girl, in a different world, where there aren't strict social norms. Wlop also doesn't seem afraid to portray female characters who use their sexual attractiveness as weapons, so maybe that would explain the outfit? Or maybe she just wants to look pretty. Maybe she's some type of leader who dresses like that regularly, and the (obviously some kind of gold-coloured metal) blades behind her are her weapons, 
Also maybe she lives in a very warm, dry environment, and follows a certain religious code where a certain type of ornamental-dress-up is required...
Perhaps she's a sort of royal guard and everything she's wearing is entirely symbolic and political, maybe to give off an aura of extremely wealthy, deadly, while her physical state is owned by her queen, whom may do whatever with it that said queen desires.

3. imo she looks perturbed - or kind of a mix between relaxed face and slight squint from it being super bright outside in the desert environment that she lives in.

Oh, she could also be a performer of some sort, you know, entertainment. 

I don't know how you could be so confused about this ^^'

If you respond to anything in this, please tell me what she's missing though.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ecuasage In reply to nyxeka [2016-10-29 22:00:35 +0000 UTC]

She's missing enough clothes. :/

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nyxeka In reply to ecuasage [2016-10-30 06:35:12 +0000 UTC]

? I don't understand. Why is she missing clothes? Most of the story setting is in a very warm environment - where clothes serve little to no purpose, other than to flounder people's self-confidence.
IMO people shouldn't have to hide themselves if they don't want to - it just leads to low self-esteem, especially when someone is raised in an environment where everyone wants them to believe that their body is nothing but a sexual object.

Anyways,  you don't seem impressed, but consider keeping an open mind

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ecuasage In reply to nyxeka [2016-10-30 11:54:22 +0000 UTC]

1. I am very impressed by wlop's style and skill.

2. Modesty is still held by some to be a virtue and we discourage it far too quickly in this world. My very point is that the body is far far more than a sexual object and that that this picture, if anything, objectifies women. Really, what is the point of showing off like this? To celebrate that the girl is beautiful? There are ways of doing that which don't cross lines into tawdry. I will grant that certain cultural norms affect this. But really, this picture doesn't emphasizes what doesn't need emphasizing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nyxeka In reply to ecuasage [2016-11-02 16:52:17 +0000 UTC]

Alright. I'll agree with that. I'll also admit that it's a bit fan-service-y, but bringing that up encourages rape-culture, which is something I don't like.

I also agree that it's somewhat of a responsibility for popular authors and artists to "emphasize what needs emphasizing", and when it comes to a male author drawing females, it can be especially important, but WLOP really doesn't do that bad of a job with it...
It's probably okay for a guy to shoot an opinion at another guy for drawing a girl in an objectifying manner, but it's not okay to tell a girl that she's not wearing enough clothes - that's her parents job, but anyways yeah sorry I took it like this was an actual person, instead of an art piece lol...

I hope this makes sense. I'm pretty tired from an all-nighter doing schoolwork ):

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

ecuasage In reply to nyxeka [2016-11-03 03:50:10 +0000 UTC]

Greetings Nyxeka,

First of all, thank you for your considered and civilized comments. Too often when someone online disagrees, obscenities and argument-by-outrage follow. Then I checked your profile and saw you were from Canada and it all made sense: I've never met an impolite Canadian and I wish folks in the States could learn from your fine example in that regard. Bless you sir. 

Second, I certainly hope the all-nighter paid off and you got some sleep! I don't miss those from my college days. Now, on to the comments.

1) I'm glad we could agree that the "Red" piece is fan-service. I was a bit confused by the grammar in your first statement paragraph though. In what way does bringing that up encourage rape-culture? Do you mean the perception of the piece as fan-service encourages rape-culture or the fact that it *is* fan-service is what encourages rape-culture? It sounds like you advocated the former, but you did mention you'd done an all-nighter, so I wonder if you meant the latter, which is what I hold to as the real problem with piece. 

2) I am not sure I got my point across in my prior statement. I didn't perform a proper proofread of my comment before posting: my apologies. I meant to say that authors often emphasize what does NOT need emphasizing in the female form (or male form, though I'm not qualified to say what does and doesn't constitute gratuitous displays of the male physique).  

3) As for addressing the inappropriate attire of real girl (or woman), I agree that such a matter must be handled delicately and through the proper channels, if it is to be bothered with at all. Quite frankly, in our day and age, it is asking for trouble to get involved in such a thing. If the parents have let their kid run around half-naked, that speaks to deeper issues within the family and possibly with the parents. Is it worth it to make enemies of people who may be unstable? But if the offending person is someone you have to live around or are afraid may unduly influence your own family (or you flat out don't want to live in a world that so objectifies human sexuality), voicing one’s opinion is an option. Mind you, if the offending individual is an adult, tread especially carefully, lest he or she become spiteful and do something rash to you. It also helps to be sure that something like bare breasts isn't the cultural norm where you are located, such as in parts of South America and Africa. Indeed, there are Scandinavian countries where topless is normal, though I think that is a terrible idea in a Western country. 

This is all a sign of how the times have changed. A hundred years ago, we wouldn't have thought twice about hurting the "feelings" of someone who wanted to immodestly express their sexuality in order to draw attention and excite lust. We would have told them what was what and let them feel the sting of censure like they deserved.

Back then, people had some concept, however fast diminishing, that sexuality is a wonderful, but dangerous thing that should be handled carefully. Now, instead of using sexuality as it was meant--to cement the emotional bond between a husband and wife so that they can better contribute to society as a team--we instead use it to make punchlines on sitcoms, sell art, and get "upvotes" on social media. We think nothing as a society about what we have done to ourselves: what we have given up by treating so profanely the most intimate of human experiences and the most personal aspects of our bodies. In short, we don't honor our sexuality. 

And, like children we fall into extremes of thinking. This shouldn’t be a matter of all or nothing. There is nothing wrong with being attractive. God gave men broad shoulders with toned muscles and women wide hips and breasts in order to be a delight to one another. But for heaven's sake, why is it that we can't see when we have crossed the line between being attractive to being lewd? More importantly, why do we care so much about our freedom of expression and so little about how that expression affects others? Can't we take the middle road that is healthy, considerate, and fulfilling? 

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

nyxeka In reply to ecuasage [2016-11-12 21:00:10 +0000 UTC]

Eh, quick first response before I read the rest -
Saying that she should be wearing more clothes is encouraging rape-culture, imo, but at the same time it's just a drawing, and a guy drawing a girl without clothes - is that something that could be encouraging the problem in the first place? 

2. I see what you mean now.

3. I agree mostly with what you said, but when I said it's the parents job - it doesn't mean you should think that something is wrong and tell them, and expect them to change things, it more means you should just not make it your business I guess. Anyways, that's unrelated to the actual art-piece sorry ^^'

4. Well said sir.

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

bezwong In reply to nyxeka [2017-02-06 22:16:12 +0000 UTC]

Hi nyxeka.

My first post here. I usually lurk. People never post online if their opinion is neutral. 

What ecuasage said before felt like a comment about his artistic taste. I don't really care what standards. To each their own.

I’ve read GhostBlade up to the current release. So I understand a bit of context about the character Aeolian. What you say about the environment of the Northern Desert is correct.

It’s extremely funny to me (and i agree 'unrelated') for someone to conclude something about rape culture - based on someone’s opinion about an image used for the purposes of a fantasy story.

My reply here is toward your comment: 

To interpret: "She needs to wear more clothes" = "Encouraging rape-culture". This is an incorrect premise and thus an incorrect conclusion in my view.  

That's like 2 guys in a crowded market in Naples, Italy having a discussion where they say. 

Constance: "Bruv, you really should zip up your bag. People are going to come and pickpocket from you..."

Pavlov: "What? are you encouraging theft-culture?" 

Pavlov would certainly draw more attention. Whether someone will assault and steal from him is a different story. He definitely does not ask to be robbed.

But to be ignorant about his behavior on drawing unwanted attention and demanding people to not rob him. That’s is pretty crazy.  

It reminds me of the police officer in Toronto who suggested: "Women should avoid dressing like sluts" as a precaution against sexual assault"

I believe that the police officer made his comment for more practical reasons.

Example: Would a robber steal from a bank protected by the U.S Military. Or a jewelry shop with a kid guarding the door?

They would most certainly choose the easier scenario.

In the mind of a rapist. If they were going to commit an assault. Why not the easier option?

If the only thing protecting your hole was a string of cloth. Why would they not choose you?  

The "Slut Walk" was largely what came out of that comment when a feminist was pissed off by her perceived weight of institutionalized patriarchy. 

Since I’m pretty sure people can agree with me that they hate people telling them what they can or can’t do.

I'm sure you heard about this. Since you're from Canada like me eh?

It is a movement that promotes the following : Women have the right to dress like a slut, act like a slut, that no matter the state of undress. 

These women deserve the UTMOST respect when showing off any part of their skin. 

They should NOT be viewed as doing it for sexual purposes nor interpreted as such. 

But in the study, that I link here: news.nationalgeographic.com/ne…

If you show men scantily clad women. They WILL objectify them. And fail to question the objects intention. Quite surprising I know.

To show off a women's skin as her pride and demand men to not objectify them in some form or another. This is absolutely ludicrous

You cannot change 2 million years of human evolution. People will treat and view you differently if you present yourself as a sexual object.

E.g. Porn stars are treated differently than a married nurse with 2 kids. 

To tell a woman to wear more clothes because men will more likely objectify them (if that is the only first impression they have of you).

Yeah, I think this is fine, this is what describes reality.

Hence i do not think the SlutWalk advances the cause of feminists. 

If woman cannot change the fact that men will objectify you and be confused about your state of undress. Then they should be prepared for the consequences of dressing like such.  

If ecuasage told a girl to dress up. That doesn’t mean that he believes a woman’s state of undress SHOULD be viewed as inviting sexual assault. And that they deserve to be raped because of that.

Quite the opposite. It makes more sense to say he’s looking out for the wellbeing of the girl.

To conclude ecuasage’s comment with encouraging rape culture- in other words. 

a. She got raped. She asked for it. Victim blaming
b. Making rape a small issue. Marginalizing rape. 
c. Hush hush on the issues of rape e.g. India somehow has the lowest stats for reported rape.

This ain't right. North America doesn't have a rape culture.

No religion, or laws by the government support rape. It’s viewed as a sin and a crime that dis-incentivizes rapists.

Medical evidence supports that rape is extremely harmful psychologically and physically to the victim.

No American doctor would outright promote rape.

However in India and the middle east there IS a rape culture.

In America. You don't get fucking stoned to death or disowned by your family if you say you got rape. 

Your value as a human being doesn't suddenly drop to 0 when people know you got assaulted.

People don't turn a blind eye to rape. It's serious shit in America.

I doubt anyone takes rape for women lightly in America. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nyxeka In reply to bezwong [2017-03-25 17:04:59 +0000 UTC]

Not sure if you are arguing for or against my point here heh.

Good stuff though I pretty much agree. 

Wish we could remove testosterone from those parts of the earth ):

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ecuasage In reply to nyxeka [2016-11-13 14:56:31 +0000 UTC]

Hi Nyxeka: First, I appreciate the complement on 4. On point 3, I agree that correcting how someone dresses is not something we ought to go out of our way to correct. Really, even my bringing this up about the Red drawing is incidental: superficial (pun intended). I'm trying to get a deeper problem: our attitudes as a society towards sex and sexuality. How we treat womankind in our art is indicative of how we think about women in general. If we think it is fine to pose them provocatively in a drawing, then why is it not okay to pose real models that way? And if sexually provocative poses are fine, why depict the girls having sex (either in drawings or photographs/videos)? But it isn't okay, if you believe that human sexuality has a purpose beyond merely giving you a pleasurable buzz. I believe (as part of the Christian world-view), that sex is meant to be a cement for a human relationship which has troubles enough without society doing all it can to encourage couples to stay faithful. 

We have desacralized sex and the consequences are unwed pregnancies, rape, sex trafficking, prostitution, sexually transmitted disease, broken hearts, jealousy, hurt feels and that's just the list off the top of my head. This is why I say the world needs Christ. Until you want him, you're probably not going to want the self-control he teaches. 

But back to the final point: why does encouraging the wearing of modest clothing encourage rape culture? It is true that one of the most common questions asked at any trial involving rape is "what was she wearing?" I don't understand why this question is even asked. What she was wearing or not wearing (if anything at all) does not excuse the perpetrator's guilt. Rape culture is not encouraged by setting and enforcing a standard for modesty. Rape culture is encouraged when we don't pound the message into our heads that one another's sexuality is sacred and should be treated with the utmost respect: neither taken without permission nor taken outside of the context of marriage even! That message leaves no room for rape on the excuse that "the girl was asking for it by how she was dressed."

Hope all this makes sense.   

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

nyxeka In reply to ecuasage [2016-11-13 23:50:33 +0000 UTC]

Saying such things encourages rape culture by objectifying the female body and making women feel like they should be more modest in how they dress to lessen the effect they have on other people - pretty ridiculous to be honest, as if it was a guy standing there topless, no one would care or think twice about what they are looking at...

Also, in my opinion, we don't need any sort of religion, we need people to have more empathy and to care more about others feelings and state of well-being than our own personal gain. The world already has religion (lots and lots and lots of it) and it doesn't seem to make much difference. It even causes some of the nasty things that happen in the world, though certainly it has had more benefit than not with bringing communities together and providing societal structure...

I don't think there's anything wrong with "desacrilizing" sex. The problem is uneducated sex. The problem is people who are uninformed of the consequences of certain actions and going through with the action without taking any precautions. There's nothing wrong with unwed pregnancies unless it's with two teenagers who are trying to get through school, in which case they are going to have a very difficult time creating a proper foundation for their lives... Anyways I want to rant more but I don't like arguing with someone about their faith as it's kind of disrespectful and it will never end well ^^'

Have a good though yo, was a good discussion

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ecuasage In reply to nyxeka [2016-11-14 02:47:37 +0000 UTC]

I understand your position, even if I don't agree with much of it. I am willing to further my counter-argument on the topic of education and consequences of desacrilization if you (or anyone else) wishes to continue the discussion. But if not, I wish you well.

On your note of empathy, I do agree that we'd do better if we paid attention to James 1:27 "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after* orphans and widows* in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.*"

God bless.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RedMoonGoddess In reply to ecuasage [2016-11-08 20:46:17 +0000 UTC]

I'm gonna say my opinion even if its hurts people's feelings (which it will... feel free to sue me later)

It's truly sad people still hold such a view against the female body even in cases like art. It's also truly sad that people think women are being objectified when wearing less clothes forgetting the only people who objectify women are the ones who attribute to them their worth based on what kind of clothes they wear, or to be more clear, attributing to them ''purity'' and ''modesty'' as values which.... let's be frank... do NOT exist. They are man made concepts and lets not forget they go hand in hand with culture. There are still communities today where people view the body as something natural that does not need to be hidden. Women moving around doing their jobs with their breasts uncovered because that's their way of life, their lifestyle, their culture. Noone contaminated their life with ideals brought mainly by religions (especially the ones born in the middle east) that LOVE to brainwash people especially women with beliefs like: if you go out uncovered you are ''lewd'' which is bad. And we dare call such communities uncivilized ... who? WE... who nowadays debate if a woman should breastfeed her baby in public or simply do it in the bathroom which is unsanitary for both. so much for ''modesty'' and ''aversion'' of the body.
It's disheartening seeing people still hold the same beliefs the clergy did during the Renaissance. 

Btw, last time i checked Scandinanavian countries are western countries since they belong to Europe (West). 
Also ''why do we care so much about our freedom of expression and so little about how that expression affects others'' because if we all behaved or/and spoke out of fear of how that might affects others and hurt their feelings we might as well ban freedom of expresion alltogether. 
''why is it that we can't see when we have crossed the line between being attractive to being lewd'' because there is no such line. It's man made and cultural and different to every person. What I might consider normal to someone else might be too puritanical or for someone else too lewd. Some cultures dress women head to toe allowing only the eyes to be seen, some others go around naked and noone cares and noone has a problem because they are used to it.

But ideologies/religion and beliefs aside, srsl i don't care.... just for the love of art, please, keep puritanism away from it. It has no place in it. It never will. 


P.S. 
''Is she dressed like that of her own free will?'' Pretty sure Aeolian (the girl in the pic) wouldn't allow anyone to tell her how to dress, she is a badass princess and warrior, not your everyday woman. The real world would really need strong women like her.  
 

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

ecuasage In reply to RedMoonGoddess [2016-11-10 04:49:56 +0000 UTC]

Greetings RedMoonGoddess (RMG)

Thank you for your comments. We’ll take them line by line.

RMG: I’m gonna say my opinion even if its hurts people's feelings (which it will... feel free to sue me later)

RMG: It's truly sad people still hold such a view against the female body even in cases like art.

ESG: So this is your assertion. Let’s see what you back it up with. To begin with…

RMG: It's also truly sad that people think women are being objectified when wearing less clothes forgetting the only people who objectify women are the ones who attribute to them their worth based on what kind of clothes they wear, or to be more clear, attributing to them ''purity'' and ''modesty'' as values which.... let's be frank... do NOT exist. They are man made concepts and lets not forget they go hand in hand with culture.

ESG: Hmm. That was a big of a run-on. Let’s condense that. You seem to be asserting that women are neither pure nor modest, but that such labels are merely cultural concepts. Moving on.

RMG: There are still communities today where people view the body as something natural that does not need to be hidden.

ESG: You are in danger of committing a logical fallacy here. Your seem to be implying that natural equals good. That does not always follow. Example: Animals engage in adultery, infanticide, and cannibalism. Do you think that is okay for people? In any case, I would counter by noting there are also people who view the body as something natural (and good) that, under most occasions, needs to be at least partially hidden in order for a society to function in a healthy manner. I’ve already cited some examples of how in my posts above and can expound upon them if you like.

RMG: Women moving around doing their jobs with their breasts uncovered because that's their way of life, their lifestyle, their culture.

ESG: I have no issue with this if that is the established norm. But if they wish to interact with the majority of the world, they’d better put a top on.

RMG: No one contaminated their life with ideals brought mainly by religions (especially the ones born in the middle east) that LOVE to brainwash people especially women with beliefs like: if you go out uncovered you are ''lewd'' which is bad.

ESG: Now you are making assertions again, saying that ideals like lewdness equals brainwashing. Five (mostly rather long) sentences in and you’ve yet to produce evidence to support your assertions.

RMG: And we dare call such communities uncivilized ... who? WE... who nowadays debate if a woman should breastfeed her baby in public or simply do it in the bathroom which is unsanitary for both. so much for ''modesty'' and ''aversion'' of the body.

ESG: That’s it? The sum total of your argument against notions of modesty rests on the observation they can lead to unsanitary practices concerning breast-feeding?

RMG: It's disheartening seeing people still hold the same beliefs the clergy did during the Renaissance.

ESG: To which old belief are you referring? That the Earth was round? The clergy held that during the Renaissance. Of course, I know you meant the belief in notions of modesty, but you see how you are making another logical fallacy by equating “Old” with “Bad”. You have to support your ideas with evidence and so far all you’ve given me is that it might get a little gross in the bathroom.

RMG: Btw, last time i checked Scandinanavian countries are western countries since they belong to Europe (West).

ESG: I believe I affirmed exactly that geographical point in my post. Perhaps I could have written it more clearly. My bad.  

RMG: Also ''why do we care so much about our freedom of expression and so little about how that expression affects others’’[.] [B]ecause if we all behaved or/and spoke out of fear of how that might affects others and hurt their feelings we might as well ban freedom of expresion alltogether.

ESG: What? Why does that idea follow? Or are you someone who believes other people’s feeling don’t matter? Well, to fair, you did kind of warn us at the beginning of your post, so perhaps I’m addressing a sociopath. You’ll have to enlighten me on your mental state. I don’t wish to assume too much based on one forum post from you.

RMG: ''why is it that we can't see when we have crossed the line between being attractive to being lewd'' because there is no such line.

ESG: The *VAST* majority of people on earth disagree. Just try streaking through the a crowded mall and see how long it takes for someone to call the police. (Disclaimer: I do not recommend you actually attempt this experiment).

RMG: It's man made and cultural and different to every person.

ESG: Here you are too vague for me to parse your meaning. Do you mean that modesty is a man-made idea that we would not have if we were raised by say, feral dogs? I tend to think that notions of modesty are an integral part of our nature. Anyway, I can agree that to some extent, our sense of modesty is different from person to person, but in groups, there is a surprising amount of overlap. Nearly every society has a tendency to cover up the genitals and many conceal secondary sexual characteristics. For something that is merely a “human invention”, that sure seems a popular idea. Are you so sure then that it isn’t part of human nature?

Although I am not fully convinced by evolution theory, I an open to the idea of theistic evolution and thus have no problem arguing in terms of a naturalistic explanation for modesty. As one person in the the linked blog pointed out (preservenet.blogspot.com/2011/… ) “Why would our ancestors develop a sense of sexual modesty that made them keep their genitals covered? Evolutionary theory provides an obvious answer: to avoid attracting people who already have mates, which would make those mates jealous and potentially violent.”

Does that make sense to you? It does to me. Just imagine how threatened you would feel if some attractive person displayed their genitals in front of your mate? Wouldn’t you be in the least bit worried that your mate might just start thinking about how to copulate with said attractive person? And is not thinking/fantasizing/visualizing a goal the first step in realizing in?

RMG: What I might consider normal to someone else might be too puritanical or for someone else too lewd. Some cultures dress women head to toe allowing only the eyes to be seen, some others go around naked and no one cares and no one has a problem because they are used to it.

ESG: Notions of modesty are plastic according to the setting. This is not disputed. It is appropriate to wear a bathing suit at a beach. It is not appropriate for the office. And as the ever-wise Hagrid of Harry Potter pointed out, “You get weirdos in every group.”

RMG: But ideologies/religion and beliefs aside, srsl i don't care....

ESG: Finally, we get to your real reasoning. “I. Don’t. Care.” Wow. Can’t get more selfish than that. Am I supposed to admire that?

RMG: “just for the love of art, please, keep puritanism away from it. It has no place in it. It never will.”

ESG: For the love of art? You mean for the good of art? What is good for art? What is art’s purpose? How do we know that puritanism has no place in art if we don’t establish the proper use of art? I await your response. And hopefully a little more evidence to support your assertion that modesty is bad because it might lead to a baby sucking on an unhygienic nipple in a bathroom.


RMG: P.S. ''Is she dressed like that of her own free will?'' Pretty sure Aeolian (the girl in the pic) wouldn't allow anyone to tell her how to dress, she is a badass princess and warrior, not your everyday woman. The real world would really need strong women like her.  

ESG: Am I supposed to be impressed that she cares nothing for other people’s sensibilities (assuming her character is like that…we’d have to ask wlop about that)? Is that the sort of person we should admire? A sociopath who doesn’t care about other people’s feelings? Do you think that such an attitude should be pursued by the general public? Do you think it would lead to a stable society? Do you think it would be a good idea to marry such a girl if she doesn’t care about how what she does impacts others?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Diylion In reply to ecuasage [2016-11-08 18:15:46 +0000 UTC]

excuse my interruption in your conversation. I don't think this painting objectifies women at all. The woman in the picture appears very capable and confident with her body. She is holding a weapon. I don't think this painting is tawdry at all that is something i would expect someone to say about cheap porn.. which this is definitely not. As for emphasizing what doesn't need emphasizing im going to take a leap assume you are implying she should be emphasizing less sexual parts of her body such as  her face. But if every artist were to think this way then we would forget to celebrate the beauty of the entire woman and artistic eras such as the greek renaissance would be deemed 'tawdry'.

As far as times changing the definition of a 'strong woman' with respect to her confidence in her body has changed. But as far as 'getting upvotes' times really haven't changed. Humans have always pursued admiration it has simply taken a different form with technology. However the difference in our views I assume is that you believe a woman should hide her body save for a certain partner, whereas I think that a woman who is confident with her body should be able to show it how she pleases without feeling she will be shamed from society. 

👍: 2 ⏩: 2

ecuasage In reply to Diylion [2016-11-10 06:49:43 +0000 UTC]

Greetings Diylion. Thank you for joining the conversation. We'll take your response one line at a time. 

DYN: excuse my interruption in your conversation. I don't think this painting objectifies women at all.

ESG: Okay, your assertion is that the picture does not objectify women. Let’s proceed.

DYN: The woman in the picture appears very capable and confident with her body.

ESG: Haughty would be the term I’d use, but that admittedly has negative emotional overtones.

DYN: She is holding a weapon.

ESG: I didn’t catch that the yellow things were weapons. I thought they were feathers for some reason. Anyway, that would argue against her being a slave, though perhaps she’s doing a Princess Leia out of Jabba’s palace?  

DYN: I don't think this painting is tawdry at all that is something i would expect someone to say about cheap porn.. which this is definitely not.

ESG: Tawdry is something you would expect someone to say about cheap porn. As opposed to expensive porn? (sorry, I couldn’t resist the opening).

I used the word “tawdry” deliberately to reference the moral character of the piece. Google says the definition of tawdry is: “showy but cheap and of poor quality.” Wlop’s "Red" is showy but cheap in theme and of poor moral quality. The theme is cheap because everyone knows that sex sells. It’s easy to do. It’s downright lazy for an artist nowadays (my opinion). Furthermore, you can get softcore porn images a dime a dozen. Sex is cheap. This piece just happens to be a more carefully crafted.

"Red," of course, is a technically exquisite piece of work. The woman in it is astoundingly beautiful and the scene is downright sultry. But the piece is clearly meant to titillate. That’s where the poor moral quality comes in. Why does the world benefit from having this picture?

DYN: As for emphasizing what doesn't need emphasizing im going to take a leap assume you are implying she should be emphasizing less sexual parts of her body such as  her face. But if every artist were to think this way then we would forget to celebrate the beauty of the entire woman and artistic eras such as the greek renaissance would be deemed 'tawdry'.

ESG: I’ve nothing against the display of the feminine form. In my humble opinion, it is the most beautiful shape in all Creation. There are, however, depictions that are sensual while being tasteful (that is not having the clear goal of arousing lust), and then there is sexual with window dressing. "Red" is most definitely the latter. I guarantee you that to the average male, the impulse is to see the girl in the picture for her physical attributes only. Her body language is signaling, "I'm looking to attract a mate. Are you man enough to try your luck?" There are appropriate venues and audiences for this sort of courtship display. Why would we think this is one of them? 

Now, here is a fun little thought experiment. What if wlop panned out the frame and we saw that EVERY FEMALE, young and old, dressed like this girl every day with some nice caption about how this is the way they’ve done it for years? Would I still have a problem? Yes, I’d still be asking, “Why couldn’t the author have imagined something less risque.” A little National Geographic intro music wouldn’t go amiss either.

DYN: As far as times changing the definition of a 'strong woman' with respect to her confidence in her body has changed.

ESG: Apparently the model of healthy feminine confidence now includes wearing a see-through veil as a bra (and skirt) and sporting making cocktail feathers out of golden blades. Times do change, don’t they. I’m still searching for a compelling argument in anyone’s comments here for why this picture is a morally good thing.

DYN: But as far as 'getting upvotes' times really haven't changed. Humans have always pursued admiration it has simply taken a different form with technology.

ESG: Your point escapes me.

DYN: However the difference in our views I assume is that you believe a woman should hide her body save for a certain partner,

ESG: I would qualify that I do not advocate the utter concealment of every angle on a woman. Males bear the responsibility to control themselves. Why should women have to wear something uncomfortable? On the other hand, women bear the responsibility to not be offensively attractive. A woman can be tactfully attractive or tactlessly so depending on the venue. 

DYN: whereas I think that a woman who is confident with her body should be able to show it how she pleases without feeling she will be shamed from society.

ESG: This is an assertion without supporting evidence. You are begging the question as to why a confident women should feel free to wear (or not wear) whatever she wants.

Why is that a good idea for her or for society? If she’s so confident, why can’t she feel confident wearing something considered tasteful by the majority? Why is it so important for her to show up the rest of the girls?

Reading into your assertion, you seem to be advocating that what validates how a woman dresses is merely that it makes her feel good about herself. How utterly and completely selfish! What about how it makes the men and women around her feel?

Here’s a thought experiment based on your assertion. Drop a bikini-clad model into a business party full of formally dressed married couples and let me know how that goes. You think the other women there will appreciate the attention that the newcomer draws from their mates? You think that won't create emotional or relational strain? You think that is fair to the men?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Diylion In reply to ecuasage [2016-11-20 04:54:21 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for your reply. I'll take your responses one at a time as well though for brevity i will skip the ones we agreed on. I will start by educating you on the story of this woman. She is from wlop's fantasy land from a city hidden in the desert in a sort of mideval time. THe city is quite moral and peacefull itself. This woman is one of two characters I can't quite tell. She is either a sort of mage that lives in the city or she is part of a group of vagabonds who roam the desert and fight to show strength. Wlop's fantasy includes knights, angels, assasins, and mages.  
ESG:Tawdry is something you would expect someone to say about cheap porn. As opposed to expensive porn? (sorry, I couldn’t resist the opening). 

I used the word “tawdry” deliberately to reference the moral character of the piece. Google says the definition of tawdry is: “showy but cheap and of poor quality.” Wlop’s "Red" is showy but cheap in theme and of poor moral quality. The theme is cheap because everyone knows that sex sells. It’s easy to do. It’s downright lazy for an artist nowadays (my opinion). Furthermore, you can get softcore porn images a dime a dozen. Sex is cheap. This piece just happens to be a more carefully crafted. 

"Red," of course, is a technically exquisite piece of work. The woman in it is astoundingly beautiful and the scene is downright sultry. But the piece is clearly meant to titillate. That’s where the poor moral quality comes in. Why does the world benefit from having this picture?

ESG: I’ve nothing against the display of the feminine form. In my humble opinion, it is the most beautiful shape in all Creation. There are, however, depictions that are sensual while being tasteful (that is not having the clear goal of arousing lust), and then there is sexual with window dressing. "Red" is most definitely the latter. I guarantee you that to the average male, the impulse is to see the girl in the picture for her physical attributes only. Her body language is signaling, "I'm looking to attract a mate. Are you man enough to try your luck?" There are appropriate venues and audiences for this sort of courtship display. Why would we think this is one of them? 

DiY: You are correct in that this painting is meant to titilate' to a degree in that it is meant to create the image of an attractive and confident woman. However I can't get over the fact that you seem to be comparing this to porn as I find it rather g rated. I don't even believe this piece qualifies for DA's description of mature content. Yes its showy but it is by no means cheap. I've probably seen too much cheap porn but this isnt boobs in your face and a vagina shot. Sure its sexy. she has a beautiful body. As if sexy cannot exist in high fashion in the artistic world? I shudder at the idea that every sexual artistic piece being written off as a lazy attempt to sell art. Should the art world simply reject an important part of human existence because the idea makes some people uncomfortable? Art should celebrate beauty in all aspects of life and sex has the capabality of being very beautiful



ESG: Now, here is a fun little thought experiment. What if wlop panned out the frame and we saw that EVERY FEMALE, young and old, dressed like this girl every day with some nice caption about how this is the way they’ve done it for years? Would I still have a problem? Yes, I’d still be asking, “Why couldn’t the author have imagined something less risque.” A little National Geographic intro music wouldn’t go amiss either. 

If wlop believed that young and old women could look beautiful dressed this way then sure. But it is not the artist duty to find everything equally beautiful. In fact artist are expected to be quite judgmental. If wlop imagines and believes that this woman is beautiful then she or he has every right to paint it. 


ESG: Apparently the model of healthy feminine confidence now includes wearing a see-through veil as a bra (and skirt) and sporting making cocktail feathers out of golden blades. Times do change, don’t they. I’m still searching for a compelling argument in anyone’s comments here for why this picture is a morally good thing. 

Diy: because it turns out that the combination of these things with wlop's skill turned out to be quite beautiful for one. It teaches women to be proud of their body though I don't expect you to accept that answer. No i don't expect this to be a major fashion trend any time soon, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. 



ESG: Your point escapes me
Diy: I misread something


ESG: Why should women have to wear something uncomfortable? On the other hand, women bear the responsibility to not be offensively attractive. A woman can be tactfully attractive or tactlessly so depending on the venue. 
Diy: Who is to say that this woman feels uncomfortable? And sure in modern day America someone wearing this would certainly turn heads. But this woman is from a fantasy land imagined by the artist.  We don't have the authority to say this dress is uncommon or tactless for its venue for we really don't know much about the venue. 

ESG: This is an assertion without supporting evidence. You are begging the question as to why a confident women should feel free to wear (or not wear) whatever she wants. 
Diy: This is not an assertion, this is my opinion generated from my personal experiences.


ESG:
Why is that a good idea for her or for society? If she’s so confident, why can’t she feel confident wearing something considered tasteful by the majority? Why is it so important for her to show up the rest of the girls? 

Reading into your assertion, you seem to be advocating that what validates how a woman dresses is merely that it makes her feel good about herself. How utterly and completely selfish! What about how it makes the men and women around her feel? 

Here’s a thought experiment based on your assertion. Drop a bikini-clad model into a business party full of formally dressed married couples and let me know how that goes. You think the other women there will appreciate the attention that the newcomer draws from their mates? You think that won't create emotional or relational strain? You think that is fair to the men?

Diy: This is quite probably considered tasteful by the majority of this woman's society. As (I believe) she is a part of a group of fighting rebels, skilled fighters in wlop's land apparently a cutthroat and rowdy bunch. This dress appears to be quite common with them. If you read her series this woman is far from a business party. 

Though you allude to a common argument in our society that a unmodestly dressed woman will make other women feel less confident or 'shown up' i simply say this. If you feel less confident about yourself because of what another woman is wearing, then wear something that will make you feel more confident whatever that might be, it could be jeans and a t shirt. You should always wear whatever is going to make you feel most confident. That is what fashion is all about. The woman that is at fault in this sceneraio is the woman who is too afraid to express herself. Men should do the same. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ecuasage In reply to Diylion [2016-11-20 06:56:29 +0000 UTC]

DiY: You are correct in that this painting is meant to titilate' to a degree in that it is meant to create the image of an attractive and confident woman. However I can't get over the fact that you seem to be comparing this to porn as I find it rather g rated.

ESG: Confident and attractive is not objectionable. And in the current movie rating system, this one would get a PG. But as I’ve hinted at elsewhere, I believe there are plenty of PG items that have no justification for existing.

DIY: I don't even believe this piece qualifies for DA's description of mature content.

ESG: I agree.

DIY: Yes its showy but it is by no means cheap. I've probably seen too much cheap porn but this isnt boobs in your face and a vagina shot. Sure its sexy. she has a beautiful body. As if sexy cannot exist in high fashion in the artistic world?

ESG: I’m sure you’d agree that sexy is possible without being intentionally titilating.

DIY: I shudder at the idea that every sexual artistic piece being written off as a lazy attempt to sell art. Should the art world simply reject an important part of human existence because the idea makes some people uncomfortable?

ESG: This is the fallacy of extremes. The healthy path lies in the middle.

DIY: Art should celebrate beauty in all aspects of life and sex has the capabality of being very beautiful

ESG: I agree. And the challenge no artist should be so lazy as to avoid is to celebrate beauty in a tasteful manner. It can be done without titilation.



DIY: If wlop believed that young and old women could look beautiful dressed this way then sure. But it is not the artist duty to find everything equally beautiful. In fact artist are expected to be quite judgmental. If wlop imagines and believes that this woman is beautiful then she or he has every right to paint it.

ESG: Fine, let him paint her from a less revealing angle then. How hard is that (again, my point about laziness).


DIY: because it turns out that the combination of these things with wlop's skill turned out to be quite beautiful for one.

ESG: You are equating physical beauty with moral beauty. How is it that you make that connection?  



Diy: This is quite probably considered tasteful by the majority of this woman's society. As (I believe) she is a part of a group of fighting rebels, skilled fighters in wlop's land apparently a cutthroat and rowdy bunch. This dress appears to be quite common with them. If you read her series this woman is far from a business party.

ESG: That all may be true. How is that relevant to how she is depicted? It may be quite common for a bunch of people to be nudists. Does that mean we should paint their labia and phalluses for all to see? (Yep, I’m actually asking that question in an art forum…I’m such a glutton for punishment).


DIY: Though you allude to a common argument in our society that a unmodestly dressed woman will make other women feel less confident or 'shown up' i simply say this. If you feel less confident about yourself because of what another woman is wearing, then wear something that will make you feel more confident whatever that might be, it could be jeans and a t shirt. You should always wear whatever is going to make you feel most confident. That is what fashion is all about. The woman that is at fault in this sceneraio is the woman who is too afraid to express herself. Men should do the same.

ESG: That other women may feel “less confident” or “shown up” by a less tactfully dressed woman is only part of the problem, and a minor one at that. The real problem is one of respect towards human sexuality in general. But really, how much would you appreciate it if the movie star of your significant others' dreams were to "strut their stuff" in front of the two of you without your consent? Would you feel respected? Would you appreciate it? 

I think we’re going round in circles here, but I wanted to say that I appreciate your time and considerate tone. Please take care.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

RedMoonGoddess In reply to Diylion [2016-11-08 21:03:08 +0000 UTC]

Seriously... I live in Italy and thankfully our clergy does not mind the butt naked women we have everywhere (from statues to drawings). It amazes me people in the States are sooo much more puritanical they can't even appreciate art, while our nuns and clerics can.... makes one wonder what the hell is going on over there for people to comment on how a woman in a picture is dressed and not the the incredible piece of art itself. 
My american friends used to tell me many americans especially from the south are more puritane than the most puritane cleric in Europe.... now i see why
 

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

SpicecreamSundae In reply to RedMoonGoddess [2021-09-30 21:14:37 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ecuasage In reply to RedMoonGoddess [2016-11-13 15:04:25 +0000 UTC]

Hi RMG. You noted: "I live in Italy and thankfully our clergy does not mind the butt naked women we have everywhere (from statues to drawings)."

Try asking the clergy why God gave Adam and Eve clothes if it was fine for them to run around butt-naked. Ask them how those statues and drawings help teach us that human sexuality sacred. I'm betting you'll get some interestingly embarrassed responses.

When one of the great sculptors was making a nude statue, the clergy asked, "why are you doing that?" He responded, "Because i want to see people as God sees them." The clergy challenged him with the reply, "But you are not God."

Quite frankly, I think that most if not all of our nude art is something we're better off without. Nudity has its place: the bathroom, bedroom, and doctor's office. Anywhere else and you're begging for all manner of problems. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0