![A clothed man is bound to a heavy chair with long locks of hair, his wrists pulled to the chair’s armrests and his ankles spread at the chair’s legs.
This unlikely image was sent in by Ashitaka, who had this to say:
I grabbed this frame from the trailer of an upcoming Disney movie titled, “Tangled.” This scene made me squirm in my seat. In it, the heroine uses her unusually long hair to bind the hero to a chair against his will. I’m sure Disney will claim that there is nothing inherently erotic about a scene in which a strapping hunk is restrained helplessly and forced to submit to a beautiful princess, but we all know better than that. This trailer reminds me of my fantasies of other Disney characters when I was a kid. Oh Ariel, you were so much sexier with legs….
Disney’s re-imagining of Rapunzel, on which Tangled is based, could certainly be interesting. The increasingly common notion of feminine protagonists who possess strength enough to overpower male leads is a welcome change from previous generations of Disney flicks in which women were largely helpless unless they, themselves, were villains. This fact has major implications for the future.
Recently, Ranat wrote:
I grew up on a lot of Disney movies. A lot. And me being the little unsuspecting sadist and dominant I was, you can probably guess which were my favorite parts. Yes, in Disney movies. […] Even though I’ve been aware of a lot of this my entire life, it was kind of shocking to add it all up. It’s been a surprising antidote for my residual sexual shame, because, dude, if I was three and getting off on this stuff, I ain’t corrupted.
As Ranat points out, imagery like this can offer people, including children, a healthy sexual self-affirmation. It’s not the case that children view this material as inherently sexual, but it’s also not the case that the material can be inherently sexual or not. The “sexual nature” of an image is itself subjective, following the same rules as the distinctions for beauty.
Any perceived dangers of an image like this has nothing to do with this image and everything to do with the context that it’s presented in. Change the context, and you can change the nature of the image without touching the picture itself. Concerns over sexualization frequently lack context grounded in reality, speciously suggesting that censorship is the only “appropriate” course of action.
-maymay](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6d9x04rUY1qzs83zo1_500.jpg)
A clothed man is bound to a heavy chair with long locks of hair, his wrists pulled to the chair’s armrests and his ankles spread at the chair’s legs.
This unlikely image was sent in by Ashitaka, who had this to say:
I grabbed this frame from the trailer of an upcoming Disney movie titled, “Tangled.” This scene made me squirm in my seat. In it, the heroine uses her unusually long hair to bind the hero to a chair against his will. I’m sure Disney will claim that there is nothing inherently erotic about a scene in which a strapping hunk is restrained helplessly and forced to submit to a beautiful princess, but we all know better than that. This trailer reminds me of my fantasies of other Disney characters when I was a kid. Oh Ariel, you were so much sexier with legs….
Disney’s re-imagining of Rapunzel, on which Tangled is based, could certainly be interesting. The increasingly common notion of feminine protagonists who possess strength enough to overpower male leads is a welcome change from previous generations of Disney flicks in which women were largely helpless unless they, themselves, were villains. This fact has major implications for the future.
Recently, Ranat wrote:
I grew up on a lot of Disney movies. A lot. And me being the little unsuspecting sadist and dominant I was, you can probably guess which were my favorite parts. Yes, in Disney movies. […] Even though I’ve been aware of a lot of this my entire life, it was kind of shocking to add it all up. It’s been a surprising antidote for my residual sexual shame, because, dude, if I was three and getting off on this stuff, I ain’t corrupted.
As Ranat points out, imagery like this can offer people, including children, a healthy sexual self-affirmation. It’s not the case that children view this material as inherently sexual, but it’s also not the case that the material can be inherently sexual or not. The “sexual nature” of an image is itself subjective, following the same rules as the distinctions for beauty.
Any perceived dangers of an image like this has nothing to do with this image and everything to do with the context that it’s presented in. Change the context, and you can change the nature of the image without touching the picture itself. Concerns over sexualization frequently lack context grounded in reality, speciously suggesting that censorship is the only “appropriate” course of action.