Are you lost needing femoid advice post here - For the poor bastard's who dare or are just curious

  • Winner
Reactions: Kulmeister, BestUserName, Procrastinhater and 3 others
ShiftyBoi said:
You know, here's a weird thought-experiment question. Would you feel comfortable dating a guy that draws porn?

Like he isn't a whore, he doesn't fuck other women on camera, but he does get commissioned to draw various scenes of sexual exploit. I ask because it doesn't seem like the same thing, if you date a whore knowingly you're a cuck, but what are you if you just date someone who's good at depicting other women in a sexual context? Would it make you uncomfortable that he is technically thinking of other women for his work?

Like I think it doesn't have to be a negative thing, Frank Frazetta was a god at painting naked women and erotic scenes, and his wife was his muse. He made really beautiful art of her and to me it shows he maintained tender and respectful feelings for her even while drawing a bunch of erotic stuff. Art is different from straight up pornography, there is a zen-like craft in appreciating the human form.
View attachment 5558598 View attachment 5558601
I ask because as an artist what people think of my art is always in the back of my mind, and I've drawn the occasional nude here and there. But I can't imagine how my significant other would feel about it because I've only ever dated other artists. I don't know what it's like outside that headspace.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put erotic art or tasteful nudes in the same category as porn. Art can be admired without being aroused by it, whereas porn's entire value is the sexual aspect and no one is looking at it for any other reason.

If a man was creating Frazetta like paintings it wouldn't be a deal breaker at all, on the contrary it'd be pretty cool. If he's drawing furry vore for Patreon, that's a big ol' no.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Kulmeister, Oh Sugar, Procrastinhater and 1 other person
NoReturn said:
The Question is based and cool:
Click to expand...
I dont want to turn this into the comics thread, so engage with caution
He has a long fucking story about how he came to be. Steve Ditko created him as a more palatable version of Mr A, hes supposed to be a 40s PI type who is very right wing, specifically on issues like crime where his position is basically if you do steal pencils at school, you deserve to go to jail. Ditko himself went off the rails a bit after reading Ayn Rand and most of his ramblings via Mr A and the question basically became "just do good and dont do bad" which is not something the target audience will not be able to understand. Once Ditko was basically kicked out of the Industry in the 70s and DC took over Charlton, DC did damage control and put Denny O Neil in charge of the question who made him more of a Neil Gaiman paranormal type character with abnormal abilities. Later on when Alan Moore did Watchmen, his proposal was the same story but with all the characters being charlton characters. In this case Rorschach was supposed to be the Question and this is was his assessment of the question basically.
1702401217152.png
1702401232625.png
Alan being Alan, it was basically the first instance of a superhero hitpiece where Watchmen was meant to be a hitpiece on Steve Ditko through the Question. When he was told no Charlton characters, he created Rorschach after Mr A to make the hitpiece even more blatant. It later blew up in his face when people liked Rorschach more than everyone else. Ive read the Denny O Neil Question run, its very unoffensively okay, idk about the character in animated shows but its surprising to see that this nobody character was in a mainstream DC show. Its like how Wesley Dodds Sandman, Blue Beetle and Peacemaker are having resurgences in the modern day.
Yeeted Teet said:
I wouldn't put erotic art or tasteful nudes in the same category as porn. Art can be admired without being aroused by it, whereas porn's entire value is the sexual aspect and no one is looking at it for any other reason.

If a man was creating Frazetta like paintings it wouldn't be a deal breaker at all, on the contrary it'd be pretty cool. If he's drawing furry vore for Patreon, that's a big ol' no.
Click to expand...
Im gonna push the boundaries here a bit, if youre okay with Frazetta then Paolo Eleuteri Serpieri, Frank Cho, Dave Stevens, Milo Manara should technically be fine. They do Frazetta Boris Vallejo esque stuff but its a bit more risque, I would call it porn but idk if it counts as erotic art (Look up at your own risk). Basically they do French Girl Drawings if you get that reference.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Procrastinhater, Towoman, nonnita and 2 others
LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV] said:
Its not a conspiracy that with several options at a time you vhoose the same pattern of higly dominating men every time. Keep coping.
Click to expand...

And I did not say that some people don't have a draw to negative traits. That's codependency 101. And many people don't even know they lean that way until they pick the wrong one.

But regardless of people's stupidity, naivete, or lack of guile enough to spot a dangerous person or when they're being manipulated, the plain fact is that someone is doing the manipulating. And they are, to varying degrees, bad people.

I'm not talking about standard manipulation. Sucking up to your boss in a new job to build front-end capital, or tipping your garbage collector at Christmas, may be at least partly "manipulative," but not terrible. What I explained and you still "don't get"* is that a) the traits are called dark because they are warped in a bad way, and definitionally intended to take advantage, and b) at a certain level they exceed merely "shithead" and are a completely inhuman (a)moral structure. If you don't understand the difference between that and regular old people skills or the dance of courtship, or have some weird need to blame the victim, then good luck to you.

*Right.

Friend of Dorothy Parker said:
women dont have agency on who they decide to fuck even if they are the ones who gatekeeps sex pretty much every time
Click to expand...
And faking up quotes that misstate everything someone said is just exactly as shady and shifty as posting a snap of the first page of a research paper, not providing the link, and misstating both the topic and the results. Some might even call those things manipulative.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: SanicBlackMagic, Procrastinhater, Perun and 3 others
snov said:
Could anyone not cry during that episode?
Click to expand...
I admit it's a sad episode, and if he just teared up a bit, I wouldn't have minded. But he was legit crying crying. Idk, maybe this makes me a jerk but seeing a guy cry hard like that over a TV show, one that's a comedy cartoon, just really turns me off.

If anything, it was foreshadowing of other things wrong with this guy, but I digress.
AgendaPoster said:
How do you even find men like these?
Click to expand...
Dating apps, which is part of why I refuse to use them anymore.
 
  • Like
  • Dislike
  • Horrifying
Reactions: ReadOnlyMember, Procrastinhater, The Holy Empress Theodora and 4 others
FarmVille said:
If a man did not cry thatd be a huge red flag that he has repressed emotional issues probably about his mom.

Men here only cry and and softly mutter “globalhomo” when they don’t hear back on their job application for Subway
Click to expand...
Eeeh. Men aren't supposed to cry a lot. It would put me off too if he starts crying easily, there's only so far I'm willing to let his being an emotionally well adjusted human being take over from the general stoicism society expects of him. But one of the things men are supposed to cry about is loss, and if they've ever had pets growing up, that episode is likely to trigger a lot of memories. I'm not normally very emotional, but that episode made me cry for an hour even on the pre-films rewatch when I knew what to expect. I think anyone who grew up with a dog would, because it's so easy to see your own dog in the cartoon dog, and now I'm crying from writing this. God damn that episode.
 
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: BestUserName, Kulmeister, ReadOnlyMember and 7 others
Men biologically cry less than women. Like sure, maybe gender norms play a small part, but the main reason is that they simply aren't wired to. This isn't a new concept either, there's a reason you will see professional mourners (Women hired to cry at funeral way back in the day) were almost entirely women. SJWs will say this is because society wouldn't let men cry, but that makes no sense, universally men simply don't cry like women do and it's biological. Testosterone stops tears and women have a certain hormone (prolactin I believe) that make it easier to cry. This is why you'll see female body builders and pooners say they weren't able to cry at all once they started doing T.

Point is, it's off putting when men cry hard or often, not just because of "gender roles" but also because it's a sign of low T. Also, few women may want to admit it, but we like relying on men to be strong and seeing them crying like that makes us question their ability to be strong and dependable.
snov said:
I think anyone who grew up with a dog would, because it's so easy to see your own dog in the cartoon dog, and now I'm crying from writing this. God damn that episode.
Click to expand...
Sorry fren, that episode made me bawl like a baby the first time I saw it. I honestly hate any show that has anything sad about animals, I just can't stomach it.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: Kulmeister, BestUserName, ReadOnlyMember and 10 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back