Reading feminist literature about art:>"The pommel of his sword looks like a dick, and he's holding it as if he's masturbating".I swear feminists are like 14 year old horny male teenagers, but then they go to public and pretend they don't like sex.
>>25170180She's even like: and you can see some skin!!!
women are the real coomers
>>25170183And women are the real pedophiles.Here's Zeus turning himself into an Eagle and Raping a man called Ganymede.And this feminist is like: some painters painted Ganymede as an bawling infant.
>>25170180Women are obsessed with dick, it's all they think about 24/7 and it's been scientifically proven that cum makes women happier.Feminism is a reaction to not getting enough dick.
throughout history, and it's a fact, nobody's unconscious ever connected erotic sensuality with the juxtaposition of flesh, fur and polished metal until those gooner feminist art historians came on the scene
>>25170200I read her other book and she sounded like a prude.I don't mind women lusting after pommels of swords or flesh. Maybe lusting after child rape goes too far (>>25170194).But the think is: these feminists otherwise are total prudes.
>>25170200I can look at a girl fingering a fruit on Instagram and say that's really hot.But I don't then go to twitter bitching about couples having sex or bitch about how sex is sometimes a duty or whatever. But feminists do.And then you read feminist literature and they can sound like total prudes one moment and the next moment they are like 14 year old horny teenagers.
Feminists will seethe about skyscrapers and rockets because they make them think about penises.In some ways, I pity them. It's tough being a man and getting bombarded with sexual imagery of women trying to sell you slop, I can't imagine how tough it is for a woman to get horny over seeing anything vaguely cylindrical.
>>25170226If they were just honest about it. It could even be cute.
"this boy holding a torch looks like he's holding a dick".
>>25170230>expecting honesty out of a womanI shiggy diggy
>>25170287Yeah, but you need to read feminists to understand just how depraved they are.
>>25170287Like here: This man is dying... and she's like - looks kinda like he's having an orgasm. And the way she's holding that arrow stuck in his chests is very sensual.
And here she's like... there's so many beautiful dead bodies in Christian Sculpture, stained glass and manuscripts.
>>25170328Women / Feminists will legitimately get aroused by dead bodies if it's fancy art.But then they go on Twitter and screech about porn.
Bro men wore fucking codpieces back then, phallic imagery was very in and the idea of the pommel being deliberately phallic as a power symbol is entirely plausible
>>25170338Good point.But i don't think she's just listing random trivia. Like drowned bodies i bet weren't commonly considered erotic back then. Or wounded and dying men like: >>25170310
>>25170282Cupid isn't a Cherub, he is literally Eros. He is the God of Fucking>>25170310>>25170328If you don't think men and saints were homoeroticized, you should see Michelangelo's nude sculpture of Jesus which the Vatican asked him to add a cloth to because it was a little too sensual. And Saint Sebastian has long been a homoerotic motif, that is why Mishima posed as him in a photo
>>25170338these need to come back
>>25170350She writes that at some point they considered it obscene that Saint Sebastian was treated by women and replaced her with Cherubs (naked child angels).And then she writes: replacing it with Cherubs turned the paintings closer to "erotic play" than before.>homoeroticizedAccording to her women were AT LEAST as into it as homosexuals.
>>25170342The Renaissance was STEEPED in Ovid and his aesthetic and his style is rightfully sometimes called the Lolita of classicalism. He eroticizes the shit out of everything and actually eroticizing a dead body made great sense for artists because it was less directly sensual. The statue of Achilles holding the body of Patroclus clearly strives to depict his dead body as beautiful, and the dead bodies of martyrs, if not erotic to Catholics, are considered beautiful and holy, that's why they keep so many on display and cite their beauty even as corpses as miraculous evidence of their holiness
>>25170351They can but it will lead to men hitting on you more than women. Men also wore yoga pants then. Women were expected to be modest while men flaunted and accentuated their sexuality. It is the other way around now and flaunting sexuality is considered feminine whereas modesty is masculine
>>25170350>homoeroticized"Titian must've known that many a woman would come to kneel and pray before this beguilingly sensual picture of a saint and so must the painters of the many other altarpieces .... "In her Book she repeatedly writes the idea that only homosexuals found these paintings erotic is a myth.
>>25170368True. That's also something she writes near the end of the book.But she writes it's sorta a modern lie. She writes for example that band singers she personally met stimulated themselves ere they went on stage so the women in the crowd would see the bulge of their penis.
>>25170359Cherubs here do seem entirely possible to read as suggestive in an age when the slang for orgasm was "the little death" as in was a consummation of sex as death was of life. I say this because while cherubs are depictions of cherubim in a way that already slightly resembles cupid, and here they are with arrows--which fits the death but also a bow. Cupid's arrows in Ovid do not cause romantic love, they cause insatiable lust and incite men to rape women
I hate women and want nothing to do with them
>>25170369That's more of a feminist perspective, Beauvoir originated it in The Second Sex where she argues there was a very erotic element to Christianity for nuns wirh things like stripping the poor and sick naked to bath them and then kissing all over their body as an expression of humility and thinking of it as kissing the body of Christ
She also writes about the Origin story of "Hermaphroditus".It's a woman raping a young man. The men keeps resisting and the woman prays to the gods that they will never be separated - and so they fuse together.Apparently that's where the term "Hermaphrodite" comes from - a man being raped by a woman.
...Is it not normal to find paintings of martyrs vaguely arousing?I guess I've got some weird fetishes, huh
>>25170386>Cupid's arrows in Ovid do not cause romantic love, they cause insatiable lust and incite men to rape womenApparently since 1500 or so there's been lots of Artwork were cupid tries to fuck his own mother (Aphrodite / Venus).... but her book is like: The mother only reluctantly let's it happen. (so it's ok, it's not the mothers fault).
>>25170412Are you also aroused by Jesus crust being crucified?It's a naked man bound to a cross. That's like BDSM and nudity.
"Cupid is once more advancing on his mother".^ I find that sentence simply hilarious.And in this book she points out how everyone sorta pretends these images are purely platonic.
>>25170430Btw. that women is a millionaire selling feminist books.
>>25170180>yuk yuk so stoopid yuk yukAnd yet, the pommel of his sword does look like a dick, and he is holding it as if he's masturbating. So far this thread has been>jpg of quote alongside picture of a painting>guise this is like so dumb n sheit rite guise like so stoopid >quote is actually sound analysis of the paintingDo you have anything that's an actual stretch or are you just easily triggered?
>>25170464I don't mind that she's a pervert lusting after dead bodies, naked angel boys trying to fuck their own mother or lusts after people wounded and dying.(actually some of that is kinda disturbing).But it's the fact that in her other books she sounds like a typical feminist.
>>25170464>the pommel of his sword does look like a dickNormal people see a sword pommel, you're just a porn addict who sees a long cylinder and immediately starts thinking of cocks.>you guys he's gripping it just like he would grip any long cylindrical handle, clearly a reference to masturbation! You have terminal cum brain.
>>25170475>she's a pervert lusting after dead bodiesThis is exactly what I'm talking about, anon. Compare the painting here >>25170328 to picrel by Holbein. You see how the painting you posted is different, right? Youthful man, sprawled to reveal his entire body, little bit of bush action, muscular, clearly attractive -- vs picrel, which is wizened, grey pallor, body frozen in rigor mortis. The painting you posted is clearly beautiful, and yes, erotic>lusts after people wounded and dyingAgain, similar thing happening. St. Sebastian's >>25170310 been gored with an arrow. Similarly, his body is youthful, muscular, beautiful. You would think that his face would be contorted in complete and utter death-agony, and yet it looks like he's nodding out, or rolling, transported somewhere else. Irene's holding his hand gently, he's not gripping it like a dying man. And her expression isn't shock, or horror, or even concern -- it's almost admiration, and yes, thoughtless lust. She's delicately pinching the arrow like she's concerned she'll hurt it too, not just him. I'd call this phallic but I think you'd sperg out so I won't go there. (Not to mention the whole wound in the side, wound in Christ's side, medieval vaginal imagery around this, etc.) >But it's the fact that in her other books she sounds like a typical feminist.This is really what's going on -- you don't want to admit that a feminist could possibly be correct about something, anything. Better to name this feeling than pantomime objectivity imo it's more honest
>>25170491>normal people see a sword pommel Um ackshaully the curtains were fucking blue tier response
>>25170180I know this is a bot thread, but can anyone provide a source for this book?
>>25170502>unless you see dicks everywhere like I do, you just don't get symbolismStop watching porn, fucktard.
>>25170430She's talking about this painting and in the Victorian Era it became popular among academics to consider the painting asexual and purely allegorical
>>25170509>symbolism is an inherent and crucial part of literature, art, etc>unless it's sexual symbolism and then it's not real because... because... uh... CUMBRAIN! So interesting that the very idea sexual symbolism makes you upset. My prediction is that you're going to start screeching something about "freud da joo" or you're going to start frothing at the mouth and calling me a tranny. But most likely you'll just repeat what you've said but louder
>>25170517Forgot pic
>>25170523This may be hard for you to understand but before porn people didn't see everything as a sex scene
>>25170509>Buys and uses multiple highlighters on an obscure book about erotic elements in religious imagery>Makes a thread about every passage he found rousing>Has the audacity to tell anyone to stop watching pornKek. Post the title of the book, OP.
>>25170520>bringing up jews and trannnies out of nowhere>if it's cylindrical, it's a dickYep, definitely porn-addicted.Tell me which of these skyscrapers you'd most like to fellate, anon.
>>25170529Are you retarded? Genuinely, are you retarded? The painting is of the god of eros, naked, asscrack showing, kissing the god of fertility, also naked, with his hand groping her tit. It could not be more obvious
>>25170498... Does the body look beautiful? Yes.Is it creepy as fuck do lust after dead bodies? Yes.>you don't want to admit that a feminist could possibly be correct about something, anything.Feminists tell us that the sleeping beauty myth wherein a price revives a princess with a kiss is negrophilic and violates consent.
>>25170538>repeating himselfYeah, that's what I thought you'd do. It's never interesting to argue with you people, as soon as sex comes up you just retreat into mockery. It'd be more productive to try and understand why the concept of sexual symbolism triggers you so much, but you won't do this
>>25170540It's a mother-son relationship. Displays of affection treated as super sexual today were normal between parents and children, siblings and friends.
>>25170464>Do you have anything that's an actual stretchNot the stretch you mean, but: there's a page where she talks about page boys being passed around and the most beautiful ones passed up the hierarchy even until royalty.And when she writes about page boys being passed around it very much sounds like she's describing something entirely different. It doesn't help that on the same page there's a painting of a boy being raped.
>>25170543>is it creepy as fuck to lust after dead bodies? Yes.Anon, come on now. You're fully aware that the woman is not lusting after dead bodies. She's describing the erotic content of paintings. We're on the /lit/ board, you should know these are not the same thing>something about another feminist talking about a totally different thing I don't see how that has any relation to this person's analysis of these paintings. Seems like you're grasping at straws to discredit it instead of actually reasoning against what she's saying
>>25170552Yes, affectionate displays were different in the past, but again, this painting depicts the two figures in Roman myth who are the literal gods of sexual attraction. You would have to be retarded to not notice the screamingly obvious sexual content here, Cupid is even contorted in an anatomically impossible way so we can see his ass lmfao
>>25170546There was never any discussion to be had with someone who immediately starts trying to armchair diagnose me about being "triggered" because I don't see a penis every time I look at a cylinder.Bringing up jews and trannies out of fucking nowhere was something else entirely. How do you even make a leap like that, anon?
>>25170553When she says "passed around" I'm guessing she means for sex? Yeah this happened all the time anon. Horrible but it happened
do you know the story of hermaphroditos and the naiad? please generate some opinions that aren't totally informed by whatever trauma you experienced before you make this thread again. thank you
>>25170567Still upset about the idea of sexual symbolism, attacking a cardboard version of the idea because it makes you so uncomfortable you can't bring yourself to engage with it honestly. Freud continues oneshotting repressed neurotics a century beyond the grave
>>25170569Yes. There's also an image of a horse and a boy on the same page.... it's like she's suggesting must've felt like taking horse dick.
>>25170566The trad era was not like modernism, you have to view things through a completely different lens in terms of what stuff signifies
>>25170573My guess from this description is that she's trying to say something about sexuality as "animal," base, etc? But it's hard to say because I don't know the painting she's talking about here and I don't have the text in front of me. Again, the excerpts you've posted don't seem wildly insane at all, they seem like pretty sober, straightforward readings of erotic/sexual elements in those paintings
>>25170576I will try to post something which sorta explains it, give me about 5 minutes because it spans multiple pages and i don't want to copypaste the entire book online.
>>25170571I've only ever directly refuted you, anon. If it appears like cardboard, perhaps it's because the symbolism you attach to it is flimsy.Speaking of neuroticism, are you going to explain why you brought up jews and trannies out of nowhere or are you just going to hope that everyone overlooks that if you ignore it for long enough?
>>25170574This is even more retarded because it's asking me to believe that in the "trad era" they were aware-that Cupid was the god of sexual attraction-that Venus was the god of sexual attraction-that people got naked when they had sex-that people kissed when they had sex-that men touched women's tits when they had sex-that human backs and spines behaved and looked certain ways, and it was impossible for them to be contorted in certain positions...but that a painting featuring a nude god of sex kissing another nude god of sex while fondling her tit with his body impossibly twisted to show his naked ass had no sexual content, charge, or symbolism at all? You can't be serious
>>25170581>refutedNo, you've stamped your foot and shouted NUH UH over and over, much like a child throwing a tantrum. Now you're going to get upset that I made that simile instead of talking about why you got upset about the idea of a sword pommel symbolizing a penis
>>25170586You've never had anything of value to say besides, "Uh, looks like a dick to me, therefore that's what it's symbolising." Everything after that has been trying to psychoanalyze my supposed aversion to sexual symbolism.The moment you tried to build a caricature of me here:>>25170520is the moment you lost. That's why you're now desperately trying to paint me as a tantrum-throwing child and throwing anything you think might stick like "da joos" or "muh trannies" at me. You aren't a serious person.
>>25170196Don’t waste cum on women. Save your semen for your family
>>25170576Here's an attempt at showing it.There's actually more which further strengthens the (rather obvious) implications.
>>25170617>looks like a dick to me, therefore that's what it's symbolisingIt's so cute you thought this was a sharp reply. I'm not sure why I have to explain this to you lmfao but when we're talking about paintings something looking like something else is one of the ways symbolism operates. Maybe the only way. This is like saying "that literary description isn't sexual, it's just WRITTEN LIKE it's a sex scene, therefore the writer didn't intend anything sexual at all in any way because it's not about sex it's just written like it is but it's not about that so it's not." It's a pommel, a cylindrical object just like a -- don't get triggered -- penis, which is mounted at his crotch, which he's holding loosely on the shaft with one hand. The sword pommel swells at the tip like a -- don't get triggered -- erect penis. I don't know the full painting, but it seems pretty symbolic to me. The sword isn't in his hand, it's not resting on his hip, it's not perched against a wall, it's rising up out of his crotch. His hand isn't in his pocket, his hand isn't pointing to something in the distance, it's gripping the shaft. >still not confronting his initial reaction, doubling down on the attackWe call this a "defense mechanism"
>>25170650My grammar sucks but moving cropped images around kinda sucks.
>>25170650>implicationsYou're making it sound like lurid innuendo and she's verbatim talking about it on the page. I don't really get your issue -- is it that she's not reacting with appropriate horror? Presumably she knows that anyone reading a book of art criticism will know that raping children is evil. She's not suggesting the page boys were being raped, she's discussing exactly how it happened with contemporary examples. From what you've posted she doesn't seem to be making any kind of argument about the joint appearance of boys and horses in paintings. But to be completely frank, it's very funny you had a kneejerk reaction against erotic content in paintings earlier in the thread, but you've highlighted "sandwiched" in the description like she's doing a wink-wink-nudge-nudge critical symbolism that you're sussing out lmfao
>>25170650Basically, she tells a story of a guy buying a page boy and accusing him of thievery. The first day this boy very confidently denies this. The next day he's a sobbing mess over it.He then buys his brother.And he tells a royal princess that the new boy has been found guilty of all kinds of things...On that page is a painting of a Ganymede being raped by Zeus - she explains that Ganymede was a page boy and in fact the most beautiful one (remember this). - She also writes that some painters depict Ganymede as a bawling infant.And the tells us that the most beautiful page boys could be passed around, passed up the hierarchy all the way till royalty (Ganymede, who was being Raped by Zeus was the most beautiful page boy - hint hint hint).Then there's a painting of a King with a page boy "sandwhiched" in-between the king, a horse and another young man. It's the King's "royal mount".And there's also some stuff in there like a poem about Mistresses whipping their page boys if they refused to sexually please their misstresses and the page boys thereafter being fired.
>>25170680>Presumably she knows that anyone reading a book of art criticism will know that raping children is evil.Having read that book - i'm not so sure about that
>>25170680It's the fact that there's a statue of a horse with a boy - in the same chapter.It could be related to the king and his mount but that makes no sense for that is literally depicted. The Horse and boy has nothing to do with the rest depicted in that chapter. It seems kinda random otherwise.
>>25170180I remember reading a feminist paper about ballistic missiles once and the point was that the missiles were phallic instruments of male power or some stupid shit like that. Like, the only reason nuclear missiles are a thing is because men want to pun penises everywhere, and they consciously designed nuclear missiles to look like penises. Shit was absurd.
>>25170650>Anon bought, underlined and made a thread about a book written by a self-proclaimed pedophileInteresting.
>>25170680>you've highlighted "sandwiched" in the description like she's doing a wink-wink-nudge-nudge critical symbolism that you're sussing out lmfaoPeople will look at erotic art of Cupid trying to fuck his own mother and tell you it has nothing to do with sex or incest.If you tell me it's kinda obvious... you are right. It is. But people pretend otherwise.
>>25170681Even the Catholic Church had an epidemic of boy rape and you mean to tell me that Epstein shit wasn't around then when the elite had far more power and courts were always on their side and documentation by victims was impossible?I want to remind you, that Gentileschi, after she was raped, was intrnsely tortured by the court (as was the legal requirement if one accused a noble of rape) and told to recant her accusation. Only after she endured this for days was her case accepted and the man asked to pay damages, which he never did.
>>25170690She's a Milloinaire. Her Book "the female eunuch" sold millions of copies. It's a feminist book. It was a bestseller.I haven't finished it yet but so far in parts of it she sounds kinda like a prude, like your regular feminist.
I'm glad that the internet has exposed women to be just as perverted and gooner brained if not more so than men.
>>25170656>It's a pommel, a cylindrical object just like a -- don't get triggered -- penisYes, we all know cylinder = penis to you. You're repeating yourself. Pens also are cylinders and even have the first three letters of penis in their name, such symbolism!>which is mounted at his crotchA common place to wear a sword.>he's holding loosely on the shaft with one handAs opposed to holding the blade? The tip? Where else do you hold a sword? >The sword pommel swells at the tip like a -- don't get triggered -- erect penisA common design for pommels>The sword isn't in his hand, it's not resting on his hip, it's not perched against a wall, it's rising up out of his crotch. His hand isn't in his pocket, his hand isn't pointing to something in the distance, it's gripping the shaftSo if you wear a sword in a common manner and lightly rest your hand on the handle, that's sexual symbolism.>We call this a "defense mechanism"Pseud behavior.
>>25170690Her other (feminist) book sold over one million copies in the UK.
>>25170703And it had been a Bestseller in multiple countries.Germaine Greer wasn't a random woman. She was an immensely popular feminist.
>>25170694It absolutely was around.But if you read that book - it appears like the ENTIRE royalty was part of it. And the church too.She talks about a 9 year old girl being married and 10 page boys being present on her wedding day...And i swear she's implying the 9 year old had a train run on her by the 10 page boys on top of her 15 year old husband.(European Christian Royalty 1600)
>>25170694>Even the Catholic ChurchIn the Book she writes a story about the Popes Concubine having 100 page boys walk in front of her like a giant conga line.I did some research because i thought that's obviously made up... and until 1550 Pope's used to have Concubines.
>>25170709I think the entire royalty was complacent except those sheltered from it. Why the fuck would I think they cared about this shit when so many had multiple live-in mistresses and many nobles flagrantly treated commoner women like Beria did? You think for a minute that the most sick and perverse nobles didn't do whatever they pleased so long as it wasn't publicized in the streets?
>>25170721I swear, if any of you have any interest at all in researching pizzagate or Epstein sorta stuff - just read feminist literature.
>>25170721Why exactly do you think a bunch of page boys attending on the mistress of the most powerful man in Europe is crazy?
>>25170729Because i didn't even know that THE POPE had a concubine.
>>25170729When i researched whether THE POPE had a concubine i found out multiple Popes throughout history had concubines and illegitimate children.They weren't supposed to have them after a certain year but did anyway.And i learned about a pope who was accused of running the church like a Brothrel and electing a 10 year old boy Bishop.
>>25170740And during the Victorian Era suddenly the Christians turned ultra prude and acted like they have any interest in sex at all...And in her book she sorta alleges that
>>25170745The more prude you act the more easily you can get away with other things...(accidently hit post)
>>25170700>a common place to wear a swordPresumably the portrait painter and the person sitting for the portrait had free will. They could've positioned the sword so that its pommel doesn't protrude from the crotch. They could've taken the sword off and leaned it against a wall. They could've turned the sitter so that the sword stayed in the same position but was oriented differently. They could've just not painted the sword at all. But they didn't>As opposed to holding the blade? The tip? Where else do you hold a sword?His hand could've been in his pocket. It could've been pointing to something, or extended, or holding something else. I'm guessing a skilled painter made that image -- the sitter could've been holding the sword there to stabilize it or something, but the painter could've decided to paint him with his hand lying on his chest because he thought it'd look better. But this isn't what we see>A common design for pommelsDoes this somehow stop it from being bulbous? >So if you wear a sword in a common manner and lightly rest your hand on the handle, that's sexual symbolism.If you paint a portrait of someone where their sword handle with a swollen round tip is depicted standing at attention from your subject's crotch, and you paint your subject holding their handle around the shaft, lodged at their crotch, then yes, it's sexual symbolism>Pseud behavior.Coming from the anon who couldn't understand that visual similarity is how symbolism necessarily works in visual art and tried to make his retardation into a zinger, this is very funny. Still haven't explained why you got triggered
>>25170735Alexander VI made his own son from his mistress, cardinal. His son however became the only person in history to resign from being a cardinal, and he used his own illicit birth as the basis since it technically precluded him, and he did this because he was much more attracted to a career as a soldier against his father's wishes. The father and son would later be used as the basis for Vito and Michael Corleone by Puzo
>>25170740My dude this rule of Popes literally has an historical term, "the pornocracy"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum
>>25170695>She's a MilloinaireAnd so what? Steve Albini made the Nirvana albums and all the Peter Sotos albums. No one is obsessing over his pedo albums, except for pedos.>Her Book "the female eunuch" sold millions of copiesThen make a thread about it, no? Or it doesn't interest you that much? I bet it doesn't, you filthy pedo.>I haven't finished it yet but so far in parts of it she sounds kinda like a prude, like your regular feminist.You think it was too prudish? Yeah, I bet it was. You better read male authors for real pedophilia. Pedophilic women are practically not real, they are all basically 14 years old edgelords with nothing of substance to back up their contrarian views.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This one i think is really IMPORTANT symbolism (to understand feminism).The Personification of "Chastity" is fighting the Personification of "Love"."Chastity" is a fully clothed woman. "Love" is a naked man shooting arrows at "Chastity".She writes that "Chastity" will break all arrows of the man until she can force him into submission and tame the man....And that's exactly WHY feminists PRETEND to be prudes.
>>25170721>until 1550 Pope's used to have Concubines.Thr Counter reformation changed everything. Nietzsche grew to hate Luther not for contesting the Catholic Church, but because he said Luther revived Christianity as an austere ethical system one had to take very seriously beyond just ceremony. Nietzsche thought without Luther, Christianity would have eventually functioned how paganism did for the Roman Empire, and aesthetic, a ceremony, a cultural touchstone, but not something people generally believed in except in a figurative or humorous sense
>>25170698>I'm glad that the internet has exposed women to be just as perverted and gooner brained if not more so than men.Yes. But they pretend otherwise. And it's with intention. Look at: >>25170768
>>25170695>she's really prudish>>25170768>Actually, she is not!Fucking lmao. Pedophiles and their shit tier verbal memory.>She is just pretending!Projecting too. Bet you fucking think that everyone is secretly a fucking pedo too.
>>25170752>could>could>couldYour whole argument rests on "looks like it to me" and "if he didn't want me to see it like that, then he could've used a different pose.">stop it from being bulbous?It's on you to prove that a common sword handle design is sexual.>holding their handle around the shaftThat's the other thing, he's not even holding the shaft like you would when masturbating. He's got two fingers resting on the crossguard and the rest are loosely curled up into his palm. That's not how I've ever masturbated.
>>25170780Chastity isn't chaste. Chastity is playing a role to get what she wants. She's taming the man.
>>25170768Also when she's writing that "love" is shooting his last arrow into "chastity's shield" - i think she's talking about depriving certain men until old age with sex and children.Because then these men will be more desperate and go for less desirable women. (possibly including pedophilic women).And i believe that's why today we have delayed adulthood and do longer give high IQ children mentorship or segregate them into elite schools at a younger age.(that may sound weird, but it's something that becomes more apparent as you read these books).
Btw. Germaine Greer wasn't certain whether or not she's jewish. But she wanted to be jewish, dated jewish and learned yiddish.
>>25170793>Your whole argument rests on "looks like it to me"Again, this is what visual symbolism is>"if he didn't want me to see it like that, then he could've used a different pose."Yes, this is what intentionality is>It's on you to prove that a common sword handle design is sexualYou're really stuck on this sword handle design, swords are an incredibly common phallic symbol, I don't know what to tell you>that's not what I look like when I masturbateI didn't ask this, but okay? I'm not sure why you're pretending not to understand this, none of what I'm saying is particularly hard to grasp. The only conclusion I can come to is that you're afraid of something
>>25170328Yummy ;3
>>25170412Konichiwa Mishima
Op bought a book titled "The Beautiful Boy" (which I kind of want to buy tbqh, but it would be too weird even for me), then had the audacity to call the author a reprobateHere's Bjorn Anderson on the cover
>>25171038>Again, this is what visual symbolism is>Yes, this is what intentionality is"Because I said so" isn't an argument. >swords are an incredibly common phallic symbolJust because they can be doesn't mean they always are or that in this particular case it's meant to be. They can also be symbolic of many other things.>I didn't ask this, but okay?Don't pretend to be obtuse, one of your arguments for why the image is supposedly sexual is that he looks like he's jerking off when he clearly doesn't.>The only conclusion I can come to is that you're afraid of somethingMore armchair psychology attacking me because your argument doesn't hold water.
>>25171153>not an argumentLet's back up. Do you think that sexual symbolism exists in paintings? Yes or no. If no, you're retarded, but you're not going to say that, because while you're retarded you're not that retarded. If yes, then how does that symbolism happen? When we look at a painting, any painting at all, we point to something in the frame and comment on it. Maybe it's how subjects are positioned, maybe it's what they're doing or holding, maybe it's what they're wearing, maybe it's the objects surrounding them, whatever. This is how identifying symbolism in paintings works. "It looks like a penis" is how symbolism in paintings works. I don't know why you're acting like this is a foreign concept (I do but it makes you upset so we won't mention it)>okay they can be but not always everywhere and symbolic of other things tooYes, this is how symbolism works. Symbols are polyvalent, multifaceted concepts, fluid, changing, etc. The sword's a symbol of sexuality in a phallus. It could also be a symbol of authority, of violence, of wealth, whatever, depending on the rest of the painting. Do you seriously not understand how symbolism functions? You don't think "symbol" means "always all the time 1 to 1 exact correspondence with a singular thing," right? This doesn't contradict anything I'm saying>he looks like he's jerking offYeah, he kinda does. Is it the exact 1:1 same hand position? No. Is it strongly reminiscent of jerking off? Yes. Like I said, fluidity>stop saying I'm scared of sexual symbolism okayAt this point I'm starting to think you're not just scared you're also retarded, it's like you've never heard of a symbol before
