Welcome to weird, you Gods-Damned freaks

[montsnmags]

I just thought ya'll might like to post some odd links you find around the traps. I subscribe to the ectomo blog, and today two came up that I quite enjoyed, and thought you all might too.

The first, for obvious reasons, reminded me of our good friend Chumley/Cholmondeley:

http://www.ectomo.com/index.php/2008...cannot-be-won/

and the second...well, it's just downright brilliant:

http://www.ectomo.com/index.php/2008...-in-real-life/


Note that both links go to further links for further examples of their respective content.

Ain't it finger-lickin' delicious?!

Cheers,
Marc

[pshrynk]

Whoa! The Korean pix are outfarkingstanding! I need to show those to my wife. She's a very talented photographer and our grandson is at that stage in his drawings. Maybe a little collab? Cool site, Marc!

[spooky69]

I find the second link much more entertaining, although asking a child to draw what appears to be cross-dressing men might fall under the category of somebody trying to sublimate their own convoluted pedophilic desires through exposing children to "queer" content (using that in the "queer culture" sense). I might be reading too much into that, but I'm also pretty sensitive to the fact that there a lot of people out there who are trying to make pedophilia more acceptable through semi-subtle (it varies) insertion of sexual content into media intended for children.
That said, you might get a kick out of this guy's stuff:
http://mattfurie.betternonsequitur.com/

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by spooky69

I find the second link much more entertaining, although asking a child to draw what appears to be cross-dressing men might fall under the category of somebody trying to sublimate their own convoluted pedophilic desires through exposing children to "queer" content (using that in the "queer culture" sense).

i'm sorry, *what* link are you talking about now ???

[nrapallo]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

i'm sorry, *what* link are you talking about now ???

This is where we ask the pshrynk to step in and take over the questioning...

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by nrapallo

This is where we ask the pshrynk to step in and take over the questioning...

yes, where is he...

[pilotbob]

By the Lords of Kobol, this thread needs to be closed. Fraq you all.

BOb

[spooky69]

If you think my comments were weird, I would go back and reread them carefully. While I don't think there's anything wrong with children being exposed to cross-dressers or cross-dressing, I'd say that asking a child to draw picture of that could be interpreted as a somewhat sexualized action. This won't strike a lot of people as the right way to say this, but it's analogous to a very watered-down version of giving a kid a Playboy magazine. I don't have a problem with the fact that the magazine exists or and it's not even a really big deal that the kid sees the magazine, but the bad part of that equation is the fact that an adult is giving a child pornography. That's obviously a very hyperbolic example and I know that non all crossing is a sexual thing (though I'd argue that it's very hard to separate cross-dressing from a lot of issues relating to sex and sexuality). I don't even think a child looking at or drawing pictures of cross-dressers in relatively unremarkable photos such as these is going to have a negative effect on the child, but I think you'd find in a lot of similar situations (adults knowingly exposing children to sexualized content, which I'd argue the pictures in the link are, to some mild extent), what you're dealing with is an adult pedophile getting a thrill out of exposing a child to that kind of thing because the adult is a dirty little monkey and has decided to go with the route of indulging their little tendencies.
I know that whole thing involves a lot of leaps of logic if you don't want to get real about sex, but I am pretty real about sex and think that at least being aware that there are adults who actively try to expose children to sexualized content (there are) is not a harmful thing. Also, I'm not saying the person who did the original series is a pedophile (though I'd bet they are), but if you see something where a person asks a child (three children) to copy three pictures of fetish art (a little bit of a harsh term in this case, but arguably pretty accurate) and that doesn't raise your eyebrows a little bit, then I'd remind you to keep a closer eye on any young children you might have and make sure again that they know to handle inappropriate behavior from adults in their life. How's that for a post?

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by spooky69

If you think my comments were weird, I would go back and reread them carefully. While I don't think there's anything wrong with children being exposed to cross-dressers or cross-dressing, I'd say that asking a child to draw picture of that could be interpreted as a somewhat sexualized action....

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse?

I believe the idea is, these are ordinary childrens drawing; the kind they draw in school of mum and dad or what they did on the holidays or whatever. The photographer has tried to recreate these drawings in photographic form.

Cheers,
Marc

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by spooky69

although asking a child to draw what appears to be cross-dressing men might fall under the category of somebody trying to sublimate their own convoluted pedophilic desires through exposing children to "queer" content (using that in the "queer culture" sense). I might be reading too much into that, That said, you might get a kick out of this guy's stuff:
http://mattfurie.betternonsequitur.com/

You are misreading the site. The artist is copying the childrens' pictures.

The opening section of text reads:
"Korean photographer Yeondoo Jung’s series that recreates scenes found in children’s drawings".

[zelda_pinwheel]

i didn't think your comments were weird, i think they're completely irrelevant and we don't seem to have been following the same links at all. you're describing something which is absent from the pictures we're talking about here.

[spooky69]

Ohhh
Well there you go
If I had been right then my description would have been correct so I was not technically wrong. I get it now, though, and that's pretty much innocuous and so the artist is maybe not a pedophile (I am only conceding this one maybe 50%). I actually liked it quite a bit when it was just the kids doing their pics of the "high art" but that is definitely quite a bit more noteworthy what they really did. In that case, the broomstick one is especially great.
If you'll excuse me, I have to go make an ass of myself in other threads.

[nrapallo]

spooky... 69...

'nuff said.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by spooky69

Ohhh
Well there you go
If I had been right then my description would have been correct so I was not technically wrong.

I would possibly have politely disagreed, or at least questioned it, but not let the word "wrong" get in the way.

...I actually liked it quite a bit when it was just the kids doing their pics of the "high art"

Actually, that'd be quite an interesting concept: kids drawing pictures of "high art" (I'm thinking classics more than anything else - Mona Lisa and the like, up to and including impressionist, cubists, some surrealism, and so on). We might find out that when we say "My kid can draw better than that", we're right!

If you'll excuse me, I have to go make an ass of myself in other threads.

Spooky69, feel free to make an "ass" of yourself in this one, or any other I/we frequent. For some of us ([ahem] perhaps just me) making an arse of ourselves seems to be our primary purpose here.

Incidentally, weird link you provided. Thanks for that.

Cheers,
Marc

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

Incidentally, weird link you provided. Thanks for that.

Cheers,
Marc

I thought you might like that. His MySpace page is pretty cool and the blog posts have some really funny comics he's drawn.
http://www.myspace.com/mattfurie