MetaChat - Don't you get the warm fuzzies when you

goddamn furries.

posted by sciurus 27 October | 09:52

wtf?

posted by dabitch 27 October | 09:58

What the HELL?

posted by Frisbee Girl 27 October | 09:59

I'm so squicked out that I can't even think right now.

posted by iconomy 27 October | 10:02

strange. yet oddly compelling. like su doku.

posted by flopsy 27 October | 10:03

What's with the little girl and her dad? Hork and Yarf.

posted by sciurus 27 October | 10:04

I'm so squicked out that I can't even think right now.

So you pass it on to everyone else huh? Like the flu '- )

[Heya dabitch! You have internet priviliges woo hoooo! I trust/hope all is going well?]

posted by peacay 27 October | 10:09

mosch stares, shocked. agape.
a time machine is needed
to quench the vile taste.

posted by mosch 27 October | 10:21

dis.tur.BING!
but nice haiku, mosch.

posted by pliskie 27 October | 10:32

to quench the vile taste.

YOU LICKED IT?!?!?!?!?!?!

posted by quonsar 27 October | 10:42

I've seen that picture before...and I tell ya, with age, it just stays disturbing.

Bleh. I have to go bleach my brain now.

posted by PsychoKitty 27 October | 10:53

It's gone now. :( I didn't even get to be shocked!

posted by agropyron 27 October | 11:24

Just go to dlisted.blogspot.com. It is right there on the front page.

posted by sciurus 27 October | 11:26

Can you see this, agropyron?

posted by iconomy 27 October | 11:26

Nope, it's gone.

posted by me3dia 27 October | 11:37

I just saved it here, and will change the link in the post. Weird.

posted by iconomy 27 October | 11:42

Why did I click? Why, why, why, why, why?

posted by mygothlaundry 27 October | 11:43

I like it. It's like, "See nakedness is nothing to be ashamed of, especially fake nakedness." I bet they're totally nudist hippies & when their kids grow up they'll be fantastc lays.

posted by dame 27 October | 11:51

Likewise. It's utterly bizarre how "fake nudity" washes over the public consciousness in a way that real nudity does not. Disguised nudity does the same thing (body painting, etc).

posted by dreamsign 27 October | 11:55

I don't think it's the fake nakedness that anyone finds disturbing.

posted by iconomy 27 October | 11:59

Perhaps we were looking at different pictures, but clothed or unclothed, the image of a young daughter/girl playing with her father's/an adult male's nether region is a bit much. If that makes me a bit uptight, so be it.

Additionally, I fail to see the connection between that activity and them becoming 'fantastic lays' when they grow up.

posted by Frisbee Girl 27 October | 12:16

Then what is? That she's touchin her father's fake penis? I can't see that being disturbing either. It's fake. She knows her dad has a penis, so it just seems like an example of this is what an adult penis is. I just think of them as a travelling sex-ed troupe.

posted by dame 27 October | 12:16

Amend that: I fail to see the connection between being 'nudist hippies' and growing up to be a 'fantastic lay'.

posted by Frisbee Girl 27 October | 12:19

the image of a young daughter/girl playing with her father's/an adult male's nether region is a bit much

It's fake. And she's like seven. It just seems more a question of plain old curiosity about bodies; that is, it doesn't read sexual.

Additionally, I fail to see the connection between that activity and them becoming 'fantastic lays' when they grow up.

Long-founded comfort wity nudity & curiosuty.

On preview: The answer stands to the amendment. Not that it's the only way to be a fab lay.

posted by dame 27 October | 12:23

This pic was on SA a while back. It's been determined to be some European artist's project.

posted by keswick 27 October | 12:41

Shades of Chris Morris...

posted by AlexReynolds 27 October | 12:51

That photo is very disturbing and on so many levels I can't begin to list them.

posted by deborah 27 October | 12:55

I dunno, it just kinda makes me laugh. Though it's a disturbed kinda laugh.

posted by Edible Energy 27 October | 13:06

YOU LICKED IT?!?!?!?!?!?!

Old habits die hard.

posted by mosch 27 October | 14:05

It is funny, and represents a healthy exploration of that which makes us human.

posted by sarah connor 27 October | 14:36

I just think of them as a travelling sex-ed troupe.

The Aristocrats!

posted by quonsar 27 October | 15:14

≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by weretable and the undead chairs 27 October | 15:53

I don't think it's the fake nakedness that anyone finds disturbing.
There is so much about that I find disturbing that it would be easier to describe what I don't:

Their shoes seem normal.

posted by dg 27 October | 17:45

It looks like the "naughty bits" are attached with some kind of velcro or something. That's fun.

posted by jrossi4r 27 October | 18:44

I can't see that being disturbing either. It's fake. She knows her dad has a penis, so it just seems like an example of this is what an adult penis is.

I agree. curiosity about the human body is very natural, and there's nothing wrong with that. frankly, I don't think that creating an association between nakedness and shame or nakedness and guilt is healthy, neithre for children nor for young adults. I'd certainly shield my kids from porn and I'd never let them read the Internet unsupervised, but shielding them from a very natural thing like what does an adult body look like is an entirely different matter.

raised as a Catholic, I was thankfully spared by my very rational parents the whole "bathroom area = VERBOTEN" routine. they probably saved me a whole lot of anguish and even trouble later in life.

but yeah, in countries where you risk prison if you take a picture of your little daughter/son frolicking naked at the beach, I guess nudity is still a very powerful, scary statement. me, I'd try to tell my kids that nudity is not bad/shameful and, when they grow up, if they like physical affection it won't mean that they'll burn in Hell for that.

posted by matteo 27 October | 18:57

raised as a Catholic, I was thankfully spared by my very rational parents the whole "bathroom area = VERBOTEN"

I'm unclear on how those two thoughts go together. Everybody in the "This is healthy" camp, would you have this family over for dinner?

posted by yerfatma 27 October | 19:28

Yep.

posted by Specklet 27 October | 19:37

I'm not arguing in favor of bodily shame or repression. (Remember, I'm the one who was shocked and dismayed that more women don't have a better relationship/knowledge of their own bodies, several threads back.) My mother was raised Catholic and tried to pass on the guilt and shame to me, but I didn't really give a shit what she or the church had to say. As I saw and continue to see it, her issues are not my issues by default and what I do with my body is going to be between me and God/The Universe/The Great What-if in the Great Beyond. I require no intercessors.

I'm all for healthy sexuality and body positive environments as well as sharing affection. I love being nude and in varying degrees of undress and enjoy doing so in both intimate and casual group situations that are non-provocative. I'm neither shy nor an exhibitionist, that's simply a comfort zone that I enjoy.

However, that picture pushes an uncomfortable boundary. We are sexual creatures. In my mind, denying that is even more harmful. It being fake fur doesn't change that fact. While I won't say that the family depicted in the picture is unhealthy or not, but it makes me uncomfortable because of the lives of friends that have been stunted, if not horribly, perhaps irrevocably, damaged by molestation and child pornography. When it was an open secret amongst the family, when it fell under the guise of other names or intents or traditions, perhaps not even malevolent or intentionally coercive ones. The problem, though, is that the intent didn't prevent or erase the damage.

It's tricky and volatile ground.

posted by Frisbee Girl 27 October | 19:56

I'm unclear on how those two thoughts go together

like, nobody locked the bathroom door, and you could get in and pee/brush your teeth/whatever if another member of your family was showering, etc; occasionally seeing mom or dad shower/pee never damaged me, I can tell you that. same when we went to the sea -- swimsuit changes and all that.

clearer now?

and by the way going at the public pool with my dad as a child, i must have showered with him countless times. the only thing I remember, I wondered why adults had pubic hair and I didn't. dad explained me that I'd get them later, during puberty, when I'd get facial hair too, and that was it.

pushes an uncomfortable boundary

yes and no. the little girl is touching the fake cock, not doing sexual stuff with it (if she were, of course I'd agree with the naysayers, it'd be porn). she's touching, as in she's curious.

I am a guy, but if I were a woman, as a little girl I'd have been curious about those strange organs men (and, in smaller scale) little boys have. touching as in "let me see what's that" looks innocent to me.

posted by matteo 27 October | 20:31

oh, and I wouldn't refuse to have that family over for dinner based on the pic.
but maybe they're annoying/uninteresting, so I wouldn't have them anyway. but not because of the pic.

posted by matteo 27 October | 20:32

oh yes, I also remember as a child being baffled at my mom wiping herself after peeing -- I knew that males after all didn't wipe themselves. so she explained me why female anatomy makes it impossible to pee standing upright, and why women wipe after peeing. all in a very relaxed, "I'm glad you asked that question" way.

I don't have kids, but if I ever have, I won't get paranoid if they see me (or their mom) naked, like OMG I have traumatized them.

on the other hand, I'd seriously limit TV time, and no unsupervised Internet.

posted by matteo 27 October | 20:36

clearer now?

I guess. I meant why credit being raised Catholic for saving you from Icky-Nasty-No-No? As for limiting the TV time of the children you'd let fondle your fake phallus, I'd say you're sure to have the most pretentious kids around.

posted by yerfatma 27 October | 20:45

That didn't come out the way I meant it. A little snarkier than I would have liked. Sorry.

posted by yerfatma 27 October | 20:49

Matteo and Dame on-the-money.

posted by klangklangston 27 October | 21:13

I have read each response in this thread and came to the conclusion that the people wearing those weird-looking monkey costumes (or whatever they are) are in fact, freaks and several of you are attracted to them. Thank you for your participation in this thread.

posted by weretable and the undead chairs 27 October | 21:58

As for limiting the TV time of the children you'd let fondle your fake phallus, I'd say you're sure to have the most pretentious kids around.

I know you backed down a bit, but on the scale of things I'd worry about my kids being, pretentious does not even register.

And yeah, I'd have them to dinner. Ditto on matteo's point about if it were sexual, which it isn't.

posted by dame 27 October | 22:32

Well said, Frisbee Girl.

posted by puddinghead 27 October | 22:54

Frisbee, count me with matteo. At age 7 my parents were letting me read Playboy. Well, "find the bunny" on the cover, anyway. And I know a local artist who did 12'-tall nude portraits of he and his wife, which hung at the top of the stairs in one of the state's most prestigious art museums for almost a year. He did matching lingerie-boudoir paintings of his daughters, all to sort of push those squick buttons. The daughters, by the way, grew up with a rag doll he made that included beanbag testicles and a penis internally supported by a McDonald's straw. They grew up sort of bored with it.

I don't know that I'd go as far as he did, or as the furry artist did, but I think the whole thing tilts much more toward the "healthy curiosity" end of the scale. It's the repression and freak-out over sexuality that breeds the silence in families that allows molestation.

posted by stilicho 28 October | 01:39

I think this thread proves that there are some widely different (and equally valid) perspectives on the idea of kids being sexually curious about their parents. (And on how the parents indulge those curiosities.)

And I think that there's a variety of opinions is pretty cool.

There can't be any one right or wrong on this. There just can't.

posted by mudpuppie 28 October | 03:16

I dunno mudpuppie. When one leads to freakedoutednedd and repression and the other to comfort . . . I gotta say the latter is better.

posted by dame 28 October | 10:08

Reminds me of being a little kid at the piss-trough in the men's room at Memorial Stadium in Baltimore. I remember being pretty impressed with the size and pissing ability of all the eye-level dicks around.

I saw my mom and dad naked regularly and never felt either way about it. They're my parents. I'm their kid.

We never hugged much (except for me and mom, because she and I needed hugs sometimes) as a family, and while they stinted on praise and contact, they never withheld affection.

And those costumes are funny. If I was a kid, I'd probably grab the furry dick too.

posted by Hugh Janus 28 October | 10:50

There can't be any one right or wrong on this. There just can't.

yes and no. getting busted for taking pictures of your kids frolicking naked on the beach, or in the bath, is wrong, period.

posted by matteo 28 October | 13:42

27 October 2005