Critique this?

kind of an essay or something, I wrote "carne" at the top.

how many fucking naked women I've seen. naked women making faces, making eyes that look a certain way. what are those faces and eyes trying to say? exposed flesh, torsos, breasts, abdomens, armpits, necks. hairless. flesh usually covered but rudely exposed willingly for the camera, then disseminated. and the women knew people would see the pictures, too. people she'd never ever meet - and people who have never met her.

why, why, why? and why do we look? many women allude to the presence of their breasts, with low cut shirts, tight fitting outfits... but these women... these women bare it all, freely. 9 year old, 10 year old, 11 year old, 12 year old boys, girls - some younger, some older - will see these images. magnetic, curious - some huge secret that's always been there. they expect adults are competent in knowing what's right, the way you do things, the way of the world. but then you get to adulthood and see they don't have it together nearly as much as they pretend. they can act like dumb beasts, and will really go out of their way to procure an allotment for their acting that way - sometimes like it's what's keeping them going. it can all be so confusing. these images, hypnotizing, supremely disorienting - powerful. WHY are they so powerful, why? Does anyone really know, really understand? Have I seen more naked women than I have clothed?

why is so much of it done, too, as if it were self aware that it was some sort of trespass, some sort of violation - but almost that that was the point, it's main characteristic of value? "Naughty" is a word we usually use for mischievous children. "You're being naughty and nobody knows it." or "Dirty" - why should we desire something which is "dirty", which feels dirty, something that some part of us clearly feels uncomfortable with? Why should that attract us

Through dehumanizing others, thereby dehumanizing ourselves - are we trying to free ourselves from the responsibility of being human?

To turn off the pain that empathy may bring us, the awareness of the great suffering surrounding us - the tragedy of the modern world?

By a very early age, in these days, we can intimately witness thousands of debauched situations - access to which exceeds that which was humanly possible in past ages by many, many times. Thousands of sexual images with nameless faces, faceless bodies - with no concomitant human interaction, no responsibility - a 2d reality with no demands on the viewer besides the participation to find the images, to view the images... to stare, dumbfounded - a slave. A slave who can't help but get caught up in a slavery whose nature they cannot even understand, yet find it almost impossible to turn away

Attached: image.jpg (620x330, 39K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_8COpaq0zWU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I guess specifically I'm not really looking for a stylistic or grammatical critique. I know there are problems with that. I know there's lots of run on sentences, and the using of "-".

I'm more specifically concerned with opinions or critiques on the content or the substance

well yeah I guess most people agree
it's only when it comes to identifying causes that things become more difficult

just for fun (tv is not a cause) : youtube.com/watch?v=_8COpaq0zWU

do most people really agree, though? it feels like there's a lot of push-back in favor of complete acceptance of any sexual impulse or thought whatsoever and the idea that it's important to act upon directly or else you are "repressing" something and will surely develop some kind of mental illness

You're right and it actually makes things themselves contradictory. It's kinda fascinating. What a time to be alive. The same people both criticize and promote the same things. Not a coincidence if IQ is dropping down.

new addition:

What are the implications, the implications of the danger that someone might find this alternate 2D reality preferable, more tenable? More rewarding than interacting with real people, for less effort? Real people can judge you, they can reject you - they can actually see you, they can hear you. They can speak to you, they can make a face at you. They can hear the tone of your voice, see the look in your eyes - and you can hear the things they say, and catch their gaze or look away. They can talk, and when they talk to you, it would be strange if you tried not to respond. They could crack a joke, and you could not like it. Or you could crack a joke, and they could not get it. They could make a demand on you that you don't feel capable of fulfilling, or you could make a demand on them that they could become angry about.

We know the 2D images were created in the 3D world, the "real word"... but how much falseness does the 2D world provide us with? How much are these 2D images a purely constructed reality, a fiction, a falsity? A mockery? A parody? An advertisement? A document? And if they are documents, what are they documenting, really? How much do we carry it around with us, projecting it onto the "3D"? And how often are we around other people that are carrying around similar images in their heads, too, trying to make them alive? And, seeing this, feeling this - the same world being simultaneously broadcast as well as searched for - does it make us somewhere convinced that the 2D is the real reality?

How much pain are we willing to go through trying to make these 2D phantasms come alive in our real lives? How much pain will we suffer if we find out that it's impossible, that it never could be possible? How much pain will we feel if we see that we have wasted so much of the precious limited time of our lives on this? How much of our humanity are we willing to let die before we decide it's time to turn back and reclaim it?

Using your fucking imagination > watching porn.

Once something becomes art, does it not become an unachievable height for the world of the living? What are the unseen dangers of a society where media has become more freely exchanged and exchangeable than currency? What is the danger if, through a progression of some lines of development, it begins to be that "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life"? What if the artists are not trustworthy?

Boring ramblings desu

perhaps in the screen we find unconditional acceptance, unconditional love - something that in the "real world", with all its fickle inhabitants, is very difficult to find. no matter what, the internet, the TV, will always be there for us - but we'd be hard pressed to find a human we could say that about ------ least of all ourselves

The images ask nothing of us except that we look

Humans are much, much more complicated

Attached: 046dfe2dcdafae2d436db739e098f962.jpg (235x353, 12K)

You're probably onto something, OP, but I only skimmed because I found it so boring. I know you said not interested in stylistic critique, but please use fewer rhetorical questions, it gets tiring and makes you sound either condescending or like you haven't actually done enough thinking to answer those questions fully, only enough to ask them.
Also you sounds angry when you should be ironical and detached - this is a cultural element so deeply ingrained that neither you nor me nor 10,000 internet virgins will ever change it, so the only effective critique has to include an acknowledgement that you are powerless to do anything about it. "It's out of my hands, but really, look how silly this all is."
Here's a hot take you may or may not want to include - many women objectify themselves because they feel they can attract attention sexually, and not in any other way. Or rather, they have no confidence in their intelligence, wit, personality, warmth, etc., only in the shape of their bodies.
Also, look into the porn industry, which it sounds like you have a lot of experience consuming. Ask yourself why you seek it out, if you think it's so dehumanizing, and learn why porn is produced and marketed in this way. Hint: it has to do with biology as much as culture.
I was gonna post but I decided to skim this one too. I don't think that pain factors in, unless you're one of those pussies who thinks existential angst = emotional suffering. Again, stop asking so many questions without answering them. If you're not going to explore the question in your writing then I really can't be arsed to do it on my own time.
This is more of a response than you deserve, tbqh, but the board is shit and I'm bored as shit. Next time do a little reflection, and realize that you sound like a woke instagram post with a higher word count, and then do some editing before sharing your thoughts.

Attached: pond.jpg (540x412, 57K)

I've heard the biology line a million times and for some reason, I don't buy it. There's also some interesting weird facts about humans that separate us from the rest of the mammals. Did you know that human women are the only mammalian females with permanent breasts? Other mammals only have breasts as long as they need to breastfeed, then the breasts recede back. We are also the only mammalian species to have lost the "mating period", confined to one part of the year. Humans are the only mammals that want to fuck ALL the time. Slave race created by the aliens user.

Anything that triggers a dopamine hit and is easily accessible will become addictive, and that's porn. That's all I meant by biology.
We're also the only mammal species to have literally enslaved every other mammal species on the planet, so who's the slave race now.

also the only mammalian species to enslave each other, too, and invent new forms of slavery that aren't even recognized or called slavery anymore

Attached: yxsqJTn.jpg (850x571, 379K)

I'm also confused about why porn should cause a dopamine hit in the first place. What if we are socialized to be hyper sexual, and that in a different sort of society, we could see these images of women and instead of seeing attractive figures of bodies we see people that are extremely emotionally fucked up - and instead of being attracted, we are recoiled and disgusted

awful, cancerous post

>Did you know that human women are the only mammalian females with permanent breasts
Cows>are also the only mammalian species to have lost the "mating period", confined to one part of the year.
Many mammals have much shorter mating and gestational periods.
>Humans are the only mammals that want to fuck ALL the time.
Also untrue. Men rate fertile women higher than the same women during infertile periods. Even if they only hear their voice.
You should try real biology, it's much better than shit you make up.

shit I've read. fuck you and your attitude. you can be helpful without being a fucking condescending asshole.

Your attitude won't change biology, or your credulity.

You have yet to do the most important thing any text should do. Give us a fucking reason to care. So far this is just subpar opinion from a literal anonymous nobody. Even if you thinking is shallow and uncritical, if you make the reader care about the subject matter than at least you accomplished something. As of right now, if this were published, it would get lost in the ocean opinions so common today.

You have to realize that in an age where everybody can voice their terrible opinions as loudly and as unthoughtful as they can, the way to stand out is to actually say something. So far, you’ve just set up a bunch of what ifs and speculative phrases that don’t actually say anything. Do you have data, do you have a method, do you have any insight? If not, all you have is an opinjon and unless you have a blue check mark next to your name, no one cares.

humans are still the only primate to have permanent breasts, as far as we know

I wasn't really planning on publishing, ever. More about using the forum, as a forum, and doing it anonymously. I have no intentions of being a writer, just sharing ideas with others.
But it could definitely be done better and more effectively. Thank you for your input.

>Gorillas don't have mammary glands
Lol no.

they do have mammary glands, they just don't stay swollen into tits after maturity is reached, they only last as long as breastfeeding is necessary and then the tits go away. not the mammary glands.

Attached: 1pc24f.jpg (1320x742, 219K)

Human breasts are also not as big as when they are being used for breastfeeding. Does that mean women don't have tits while not lactating?

bigger or smaller, the fact that they are these huge jubbly hanging bags qualifies them as tits. you fucking weeb.

>huge jubbly hanging bags qualifies them as tits. you fucking weeb.
Which gorillas still also have while not lactating, but not as big as when lactating. Same as humans. I could watch anime in a kimono all day and they'd still both swell with milk and be noticeably smaller when not lactating for both species.

copied and pasted

Homo sapiens is, as far as we know, the only species that has permanently enlarged breasts. In the rest of the primates, plump breasts last only as long as breastfeeding does:

Humans are the only primate to have breasts that are enlarged at all times, in contrast to other primates which have swollen breasts only when breastfeeding. This suggests that human breasts have a unique function that is not shared by other primates. (source)

The main reason for larger breasts existence (which would explain their evolutionary presence) seems to be not lactation -pre-pregnancy size is no indication of a woman's ability to produce milk-, but because they are a signal of a woman's ability to store fat - and therefore be considered more fertile (Mascia-Lees et al., 1986, Pawlowski, 1999, Pawlowski et al., 2004).

Women with hourglass figures have been proven to be more likely to become pregnant:

Women with higher breast to under-breast ratios (large breasts) or low waist to hip ratio (WHR) have higher hormone levels (...) High levels of these hormones are good indicators that a woman will successfully become pregnant.

The ratio of bust-to-waist may predict hormone levels, so women with larger breasts are thought to be more fertile, and more attractive. This is believed to be the main reason why humans have permanently enlarged breasts.

>Homo sapiens is, as far as we know, the only species that has permanently enlarged breasts
This implies that human breasts are not enlarged by lactation. Which is false.

yous one jive ass honky aintcha boy

You're the one who seems to have problems with basic logic. What you probably are trying to argue is that humans are the only primate to store fat over pectoral muscles, but that applies to males also.

no, thats not what im trying to say, and youre just trying to be right about something because youre a faggot with a small dick and trying to save a sense of prideful egotism about winning an argument with an anonymous stranger on the internet

fuck you and fuck yourself

Attached: d8a79a872b0d69ae2b46f7113a0acf4b.jpg (631x960, 45K)

It's a pity you're not trying to argue something that makes biological sense. Fat distribution as a sign of sexual readiness is highly variable across primates, but biologically viable as a theory: female baboons for instance flood their buttocks with blood to attract mates because it imitates a greater fat distribution in the area. You almost latched on to a theory that had legs.

Are you in highschool?

Attached: your-words-are-hurtful.jpg (320x240, 36K)

It has nothing to do with biology.
Even if it had - relying so much on "science" would imply metaphysical presumptions that themselves don't belong to science at all, ofc
Social sciences, economy and psychoanalysis are more than enough to understand the phenomenon