To quote Scrollone@feddit.it elsewhere in the conversations:

It makes me think about the Italian movie from the '80s called “Maladolescenza”, which is now considered child porn by many countries, thus illegal.

I also saw a newspaper from the time in which they were interviewing people that came out of the movie theater, asking them what they thought of the movie. It was almost as disgusting as this article.

So certainly a fair number of people did.

Yeah, but it seems most of the people watching that movie took exactly the wrong message away from it, if that article is any indication.

1/3? Man, those are rookie numbers. Something like 80% of my home state were members at one time.

(Which makes sense, as back then we had actual laws on the books that made us a ‘whites only’ state.)

You’d think so, but they’ve done studies and there tends to be more marital issues in families where the woman makes more of, or all of, the money.

Personally I agree that it shouldn’t be defined along gender lines. We don’t have kids, but my husband is way better with babies and children than I am. It would make much more sense (if we could afford it) for me to work and him to stay home. But it seems that, society-wise, we have a long way to go.

You mean like they ‘didn’t’ at Kent State?

Don’t kid yourself; they absolutely will. Going by our history, though, if they can they’ll do it to a black neighborhood first.

They’ve done it before. They’ll do it again.

I hate to say it, but I absolutely guarantee the law will do nothing but show up afterwards and pick up the pieces. If he does decide to get his fat ass off the couch and come get you, you’ll have to handle him yourself.

My grandmother too.

Every time the pockets-in-pants thing comes up:

Women in the comments: OMG yes please what we have now sucks

Men in the comments: well acktually…

Or, hot take, a company that sells clothes with pockets makes less money than a company that sells clothes without pockets and then offers ladies $50-150 purses to compensate. If you think the fashion industry hasn’t noticed that, you’re crazy.

It’s like how the American auto industry noticed they could make more money selling big vehicles and so all of them just stopped making smaller cars. Plenty of Americans say they want smaller cars, but the American auto makers don’t care.

No, it’s definitely a thing, and trends more in clothes geared to older women. When I shopped at Forever 21 back when I was in my 20s, I was a size 4-6; when I shopped at REI I was a size 4. When I shopped at Chicos, on the other hand, which caters almost exclusively to older women, I was a size 0. And sometimes even that was too big on me.

They want us to all go back to saying things like ‘she’s in a delicate condition’ and shit lol

‘Sharpedo Pokémon’ works too

Then why are you everywhere in the comments making all kinds of effort to complain about the artist and the message you see in their work?

Seems if we all agree this sort of thing happens to women, now and again, then we have nothing to argue over.

Well yes. But that twat was all up in the ‘not all men!’ and ‘women do bad stuff too!’ so I just opted to make it more gender-neutral so they wouldn’t derail the conversation with inanities again.

The problem is they found new ones lol. Anything but actually discussing the core issues and their personal issues, I guess.

No, they didn’t? This literally happens?

Where in the comic does it say ‘all men do this’? Because that seems to be your interpretation.

It seems you’re projecting quite a lot onto this comic for some reason, and you’re driven to fight to prove your interpretation of the comic isn’t true. You might want to do some introspection and think about why that is.

She’s not interested.

I’m assuming you identify/present male? If so, she is afraid of openly rejecting a man. There’s an old ‘joke’ that would be funnier if it was less true: men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will kill them.

Trust me, you would get a lot more than ‘thanks’ if she was in to you.

It seems more like you’re the one deliberately making a bad-faith argument by feigning ignorance of the meaning of the question, but what the heck, I’ll bite.

In case you didn’t know, the statement about bear vs stranger is simple: both could be dangerous. But the bear you know at a distance is dangerous, and bears are rather more predictable than humans. The stranger, on the other hand, is far less predictable, and you don’t know if they’re safe or dangerous until you get close.

After all, she/he could be crazy and carrying a gun, and you don’t need to be a speedy 600lb killing machine to be deadly with one of those.

And that is why women chose the bear.

I like Pratchett’s take. The Tooth Fairy of the Discworld takes the baby teeth and hides them in his domain because pieces of a person can be used for sympathetic magic, like cursing someone, and he wants to protect the kids from that.

Yeah, but you have to factor in the rabid Christian belief that she’s an eternal virgin. So they have to make up all kinds of complicated explanations for how any siblings could exist.

(According to official doctrine they were either cousins or children of Joseph’s from a previous marriage)