What always bugs me about this is that they had the boys in underwear. Like, if it's fine to symbolize with clothed girls, why do you need to do it differently with boys?
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
205 points (100.0% liked)
196
17747 readers
697 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
100% with ya, the double standards are kinda crazy. The differnce between the first two panels is pretty stark in regards to the kid, even if the point is essentially the same.
My take is that male bodies need to exposed in order to be sexualized so they read vulnerable, but female bodies are can be read as sexualized and vulnerable regardless how they are presented. But that doesn't really explain panel 4 & 6.
Weird choices. If anyone knows who the artist is, I'd be curious how they would talk about this.
With the priest it makes sense to me considering they are infomas for being pedophiles but the rest yea why couldn't they have been clothed
Especially since #1 and #2 are both instances of sexual violence.
I'd have dresses #1 in a choir boy outfit, #4 in a hospital johnny, and #6 can wear whatever honestly.
Because only the males are fit to actually dress like Jesus. /s
Why do you care?
Because sexism is bad
I think it’s Just more apparent
What the fuck is this supposed to mean??
catholic priests, sex tourism, war
(abortion?), gun crime/gangs, obesity
...hurts kids
I'm afraid to ask. What does the bottom left represent?
There's organ box next to them, maybe organ harvesting?
Ah, that makes sense =/
Prob some anti-medicine/ pharma/ vax or other conspiracy stuff. Organ harvesting from children isn't a thing, unless that's the conspiracy and we're right back where we started.
The only reasonable thing I can think of is lack of access to healthcare, and I guess insurance people and lobbyists don't have uniforms so they went with a doctor.
Child organ trafficking is much rarer than sexual, but very much a thing that exists. Conspiracies may exaggerate, but don't make the mistake of dismissing the existence entirely as a consequence
I'm not thinking antimedicine. More like a criticism of the broken system.
Really unsure about the symbolism here. Didn't Jesus die on the cross for our sins to be forgiven or something along those lines? So this kinda implies the abused children die to give forgivness to the people they are nailed to here...
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I've never been to a church and neither has anyone I know.
Even in religious circles the forgiveness part is normally left out. The phrase often repeated is "Jesus died for your sins" without any mention of forgiveness. Since that is the common turn of phrase then this depicts children suffering/dying because of the sins of someone else.
I mean this whole Jesus thing is pretty fucked up / meta, so I see no difference here
Dog I think this is just about pedophilia or which children each person figuratively hurts?
Kind of fucked up that the child in the bottom right has to pose for something he's already experiencing
Holy fucking shit
every human atrocities in expenses of next generations
what is top middle
Tourism and its effects on local people? Idk
I'm guessing sex tourism
Camera implies upskirts I think.
Since it could be so many things like the other comments are pointing out, I think it's supposed to prompt conversation.
This answer is such a cop out.
We're having a conversation about how pointless and confusing the piece is, not the intended message.
I dont understand the middle one in the upper row and the left one in the bottom row. The rest are pretty obvious to me.
Upper middle I think is sex trafficking - used to be huge in Thailand.
Bottom left... Abortion?
Maybe but the bottom left looks like an organ transporting container and i dont think they use that for abortions. But ig its art even tho i dont agree with everything it represents.
I'm not sure if it's photo clarity, but it does kind of look to me like the boy has stitched up cavity down his center
Bottom left looks like forced organ harvesting? Not sure how often that actually happens to children, but the world is a fucked up place so it's possible I suppose.
Wait. What's the doctor one?
Organ harvesting
That kid is way too young for organ harvesting though. Most of the demand for organs is from adults who need adult sized organs and kid organs won't keep growing in a body that's long stopped producing all the hormone indicators to signal for growth.
or... or, so I'm told.
Interesting, I assumed it would grow to fit
But what’s the context? I’m completely unaware that doctors were murdering or sacrificing children to steal their organs.
It's a common conspiracy theory promoted by far right nutjobs.
Thanks
It really makes you think