Something odd I noticed

[cybotron]

Originally posted by jeffbert@Sep 5 2004, 07:19 AM
As a fan of old movies, I remember more than once seeing Shirley Temple's undies exposed, often while she was dancing, but also in other scenes. More often, though, her thighs were exposed all the way to her panties, while she danced. I think it was considered cute to have little girls dresses 1 or 2 sizes too small, and their panties occasionally exposed. Little kids in general were apparently not considered sexual or sexually attractive by film makers until the mid 80s pedophile hunt, although the (self-imposed) Hayes Code did forbid showing their tinklers. Nevertheless, I think I read something about public reaction to the Coppertone girl's bottom when she first appeared on its ads. During that 'hunt', works of art, from photography to statues, that had been accepted as decent, were re-evaulated, and anything that depicted naked kids was suddenly though to be obscene, regardless of the poses or actions depicted. Thus, anyone born during or after that phase would likely hold those values.

Impressive.... Most impressive.... But spoken like a true Hollywood outsider.

[jeffbert]

Originally posted by cybotron+Sep 4 2004, 07:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cybotron @ Sep 4 2004, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jeffbert@Sep 5 2004, 07:19 AM
As a fan of old movies, I remember more than once seeing Shirley Temple's undies exposed, often while she was dancing, but also in other scenes. More often, though, her thighs were exposed all the way to her panties, while she danced. I think it was considered cute to have little girls dresses 1 or 2 sizes too small, and their panties occasionally exposed. Little kids in general were apparently not considered sexual or sexually attractive by film makers until the mid 80s pedophile hunt, although the (self-imposed) Hayes Code did forbid showing their tinklers. Nevertheless, I think I read something about public reaction to the Coppertone girl's bottom when she first appeared on its ads. During that 'hunt', works of art, from photography to statues, that had been accepted as decent, were re-evaulated, and anything that depicted naked kids was suddenly though to be obscene, regardless of the poses or actions depicted. Thus, anyone born during or after that phase would likely hold those values.

Impressive.... Most impressive.... But spoken like a true Hollywood outsider. [/b][/quote]
Let me assure you, I am an outsider to just about everything.

[Big Astro Fan]

I was just watching the episode where they showed Alvin looking up Misty's dress. It wasn't just a quick glance. It was about 4 seconds looking up the front of her dress. That really surprises me that it was allow to stay.

[dannavy85]

LOL! All I can say is "grow up" to some prunes.

I remember an episode of Romper Room back in the 70's when a little boy was on his hands and knees looking up Mrs. Mary Ann Lynn's skirt. If you were a boy and you got a chance to look up a girls skirt....heck yeah!

It was an innocent comedy gag Tezuka put into the script.

[jeffbert]

As far as panties go, they differ very little from the form-fitting bathing suits that nearly all females wear. The forbidden aspect of the one is that that garment is expected to be under some other garment, rather than visible. Girls in bathing suits are common sights at beaches and public pools. Yet, guys will sometimes value the forbidden peek at panties as more stimulating than the common sight of bikini-clad bottoms.

There are differences between the panties shots here and those found in Agent Aika & other titles like it. The intent is different, as are the viewing angles. I recall seeing Nuku Nuku's panties as she somersaulted into action. Although Nuku Nuku clearly has sex-appeal, her panty shots have more in common with Misty & Uranu-chan's than with Aika's. They are more 'cute' than 'sexy'; however, this is my opinion. Innocent shots have tummies & bottoms, while sexy shots focus upon that area that lies between them.


Link provided lest some be offended
Alvin & his view of Misty.

Here is Misty's initial reaction to Alvin:

"Oh!"

The angle is nearly identical to the earlier shot before she pressed her dress against her legs, which were then as they are now, together.

Here is Nuku Nuku's nemesis, Eimi-chan, her secret revealed (she is an android):

Note that the angle is from above her rather than the view that Nuku Nuku would be seeing.

I provide a link here, rather than the pic itself (not that there is anything explicit about this pic, but some might object to it): a closer view of Eimi's behind. Note that this does not show her underside, but only her backside.

These types of shots are clearly cute more than they are sexy. However, if we consider that one man's cute is another's sexy, we must conclude that some could be turned on by the sight of Misty's panties. The question then becomes how far towards intolerance & restriction must we go to protect children from those who would prey upon them? Clearly, it is impossible to ban everything that might stimulate pedophiles, without banning children from any public exposure ('exposure' not used as in 'naked', but as in ‘seen’).

It seems that the increase in child molestation & rape came close on the heels of tolerance of homosexuality; although it is one thing to show correlation, & another to show causation.

[cybotron]

Astro is in school....
These shots were put into the nursery curriculum in order to sexually stimulate Boys with thoughts of curiosity toward girls. The war was over, the population needed resupply of heterosexual workerboys and replacement soldiers. Disney was very good at this.
But during the Viet Nam cycle of the AERIA GLORIS.
This was introduced into cartoon land.... And into the Nursery of these days.
http://www.lambiek.net/artists/crumb/crumb...fritz_cover.jpg

[jeffbert]

Originally posted by cybotron@Sep 14 2004, 04:49 PM

Astro is in school....
These shots were put into the nursery curriculum in order to sexually stimulate Boys with thoughts of curiosity toward girls. The war was over, the population needed resupply of heterosexual workerboys and replacement soldiers. Disney was very good at this.
But during the Viet Nam cycle of the AERIA GLORIS.
This was introduced into cartoon land.... And into the Nursery of these days.
http://www.lambiek.net/artists/crumb/crumb...fritz_cover.jpg

I think it was just a bit late for that, nearly 40 years late, to be precise. I briefly studied 20th century Japanese history, but do not recall seeing anything about a sagging birth rate. I admit that I might have missed something. So, if you can provide some better evidence than Fritz the Cat, please do so.

But, even then, pre-adolescent boys have very little natural interest in girls, & boys usually do not become interested until puberty. They literally want nothing to do with girls between the ages of 6 or 7 and the onset of puberty.

[cybotron]

Originally posted by jeffbert+Sep 15 2004, 11:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jeffbert @ Sep 15 2004, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--cybotron@Sep 14 2004, 04:49 PM

Astro is in school....
These shots were put into the nursery curriculum in order to sexually stimulate Boys with thoughts of curiosity toward girls. The war was over,  the population needed resupply of heterosexual workerboys and replacement soldiers. Disney was very good at this.
But during the Viet Nam cycle of the AERIA GLORIS.
This was introduced into cartoon land.... And into the Nursery of these days.
http://www.lambiek.net/artists/crumb/crumb...fritz_cover.jpg

I think it was just a bit late for that, nearly 40 years late, to be precise. I briefly studied 20th century Japanese history, but do not recall seeing anything about a sagging birth rate. I admit that I might have missed something. So, if you can provide some better evidence than Fritz the Cat, please do so.

But, even then, pre-adolescent boys have very little natural interest in girls, & boys usually do not become interested until puberty. They literally want nothing to do with girls between the ages of 6 or 7 and the onset of puberty.[/b][/quote]
That's because of the maternal and parental command that
you must not look up a girls skirt.
This is the redirection of Psychic Power from the natural Hormone driven Psyche,
Into the rigid anti-hormone driven Psyche of thought control by Parental Surrogate.
The willful child, slave of Pop culture must be broken. The Taboo of "Sex thought" is used like a hammer in all thought control. To beat the neuropathic child brain into rebellion against it's parents, and into obedience of the parental surrogate... The State, The University Curriculum. The Japanese don't use "Sexual Terror" as the basis of Elementary Child Education. h34r:

[jeffbert]

Huh? your statement makes little sense. The last sentence seems unrelated to those that precede it, and they make little sense. I have a minor in psychology, but never heard of a neuropathic child brain. Please define this term.

[cybotron]

Originally posted by jeffbert@Sep 15 2004, 01:04 PM
Huh? your statement makes little sense. The last sentence seems unrelated to those that precede it, and they make little sense. I have a minor in psychology, but never heard of a [b] neuropathic child brain. Please define this term.[/b]

The child brain is mocked and bullied into oblivion by the "peer/group" in it's rush to grow up.
The Child Brain in it's existential "I am a child" state, is therefore "neu·ro·path·ic", degenerative, fading fast, short lived. Childhood=The Bio-Chemical Neobrain Environment. All indoctrination is aimed at the Neuropathic Child Brain. The ruins of which may be found in the Neurotic Adult Brain.