The new Nana set, Nanohana added today:
Okay I get that she is trying to make a statement... I get that. I get that it's supposed to be art. I am all for art pushing boundries... believe me. And the photography and lighting and composition is very very good... and Nana is very pretty...
But this is not right.
Everybody's got their fantiasies I know. I get that. And I've made plenty of "so a pedophile and a little girl are walking through the woods" jokes... But this is just not the statement you want to make. Too many women I know, and too many women on here have been harmed by sexual assault and spend a life time trying to recover. And by looking at the board I can see that this set only perpetuates the fantasy in sexual preditors and sickens victims and their loved ones.
SG for me was about reinventing beauty, in your own image. SGs create these beautiful works of art in form in the way that they see fit. Beauty for them is not what they see in the traditions we grew up with. It's what they choose for it to be. It may be just a pose or a wink, maybe a setting and a wee bit of hair dye, it may be full on crazy hair and over the top modifications. Either way it's about creating. That is my aesthetic standard. And in that sense SG contains some of the best art on the internet. Lets face it, playboy playmates are pretty but they are always pretty in THE MOST CONVENTIONAL way almost every time. And over the years it has portrayed an almost conformist sense of beauty. The classic look that says you must be born beautiful... And I've had a subscription for many years... it's a great magazine. But SG for me was a breath of fresh air (and a vastly superior artistic statement), and for many women including the two I live with it's helped them see that they can be as pretty as any playmate by realizing that the standard is in THEIR HANDS and nowhere else.
But what aesthetic standard does this set portray? What is the image of beauty being created here?
Force = pleasure? might makes right? Indeed the SS Broach is an important and fitting symbol here, but in putting it on the victim is the symbolism lost?
In creating these Images the artists tell us: Pleasure/Beauty can be derived by imposing our will on another, just as the Nazi's taught of happiness only in a world where the German/Superman's will is imposed on all people. It's a disgusting standard that enslaves each man to the will of every other and leaves nobody free or happy.
And here we throw sexual gratification into the mix... no positive value can come from this.
It is not beautiful when a woman's will is enslaved to a man's sexual whim. That is the essence of perversion. It is that standard, that message of beauty which I oppose here.
Okay I get that she is trying to make a statement... I get that. I get that it's supposed to be art. I am all for art pushing boundries... believe me. And the photography and lighting and composition is very very good... and Nana is very pretty...
But this is not right.
Everybody's got their fantiasies I know. I get that. And I've made plenty of "so a pedophile and a little girl are walking through the woods" jokes... But this is just not the statement you want to make. Too many women I know, and too many women on here have been harmed by sexual assault and spend a life time trying to recover. And by looking at the board I can see that this set only perpetuates the fantasy in sexual preditors and sickens victims and their loved ones.
SG for me was about reinventing beauty, in your own image. SGs create these beautiful works of art in form in the way that they see fit. Beauty for them is not what they see in the traditions we grew up with. It's what they choose for it to be. It may be just a pose or a wink, maybe a setting and a wee bit of hair dye, it may be full on crazy hair and over the top modifications. Either way it's about creating. That is my aesthetic standard. And in that sense SG contains some of the best art on the internet. Lets face it, playboy playmates are pretty but they are always pretty in THE MOST CONVENTIONAL way almost every time. And over the years it has portrayed an almost conformist sense of beauty. The classic look that says you must be born beautiful... And I've had a subscription for many years... it's a great magazine. But SG for me was a breath of fresh air (and a vastly superior artistic statement), and for many women including the two I live with it's helped them see that they can be as pretty as any playmate by realizing that the standard is in THEIR HANDS and nowhere else.
But what aesthetic standard does this set portray? What is the image of beauty being created here?
Force = pleasure? might makes right? Indeed the SS Broach is an important and fitting symbol here, but in putting it on the victim is the symbolism lost?
In creating these Images the artists tell us: Pleasure/Beauty can be derived by imposing our will on another, just as the Nazi's taught of happiness only in a world where the German/Superman's will is imposed on all people. It's a disgusting standard that enslaves each man to the will of every other and leaves nobody free or happy.
And here we throw sexual gratification into the mix... no positive value can come from this.
It is not beautiful when a woman's will is enslaved to a man's sexual whim. That is the essence of perversion. It is that standard, that message of beauty which I oppose here.
VIEW 7 of 7 COMMENTS
supernaut2112:
I guess I didn't even get into the pedophilia aspect.
supernaut2112:
It's gone! we got rid of it! Apparently so is the model.