14 Replies to “Ariel”
Note: Comments are mostly uncensored and not necessarily endorsed by the site owner.
I asked Google…
As depicted in the 1989 film, Ariel is the youngest of King Triton’s seven daughters, and is 16-years-old. Ariel has a vast fascination with the world of humans, despite contact being forbidden by her father, Triton, who hates humans.
If it’s a problem for you, you can just suspend your disbelief a little further by pretending they increased her age to 18 when they “updated” her. Because she’s not real either way, so nobody is being harmed.
Works for me. It’s actually quite plausibly what Disney would do (if they were doing PN princesses at all of course) since IRL there seems to be a trend towards older princesses as attitudes change (Elsa’s 21!)
But for multiple reasons I don’t see a problem here. Not only is the picture completely innocent, but she is of course a mermaid, not a human. And mermaids have been depicted as not wearing clothes forever, including in the original, pre-Disney telling of this story.
Cato I have to ask: Do you just go back and troll on old posts for kicks?
That being said, I have no objection whatsoever to topless mermaids or nude cartoons. BUT, I agree that since Ariel from Little Mermaid was always depicted as being under 18, it’s pretty awkward for her to be topless or nude. So I agree that is creepy in that context but…A, it is a cartoon and B you had to specifically go back to find an old, out of date post to make the comment at all. Not trying to be rude to you or anyone else but…maybe you need to find something more useful to occupy your time then back-tracking to make complaints on a blog that never intended to do any harm?
Times change. Up until 2003 it was legal for Page 3 girls aged 16 and 17 to appear topless in UK newspapers. I’m sure that this would be a reboot of Ariel to comply with contemporary laws.
Nudist magazines used to show children all the time. Simple nudity is fine. I’ve nothing against naturism/nudism. They very much monitor what they allow in their magazines, websites, and even their campgrounds. Any hint of sexualizing the nudity is forbidden. Thus children are allowed. It is the sex, not the nudity. Two totally different things.
Sites like NWO try to normalize nudity, and that’s a wonderful thing. But there are posts being more sexual in nature. I’ve no problem with that either. However, to then introduce children into the mix? Nope!
Hit the “random” link sometime. Way too many old posts to go one by one. Sometimes a nice post, or sometimes something I dislike. Sometimes a more controversial post. More recently NWO placed a similar post behind an extra click.
Re-read my previous post. All I did was to identify the character. You seem to be the one passing judgement where none was given, but since you did, here’s my take on depicting children on a website devoted towards many sexual references: The two should never be mixed. Not in real life. Not in fantasies. Not in art. Not in cartoons. The reason is that such websites attract undesireables. Will they comment to their perverted desires? Will they start submitting images ever so closer to that fantasy they hold. Such tolerances invite the camel’s nose into the tent. That is for NWO to decide when or if to draw line.
For me, I prefer a bit of consistency. Place one underage anime behind an extra click? Why not place this one behind another click?
Cato would make a good cop at a speed trap, sitting there waiting to bust drivers for no tag light, or following too closely, or driving (not speeding) in the left lane, or failing to turn on headlights as soon as dusk falls, or…
You seem to have a problem with underage depictions being behind a simple click, yet no problem with slow drivers blocking the passing lane (which results in the person passing on the right getting a ticket).
Please exp[lain how a simple click is equal to the government issuing traffic tickets, fining the citizens for infractions?
I guess this caption sort of conflicts with another recent post, but technically that’s a whole new princess as opposed to a revised one.
Of the existing Disney Princesses, Ariel certainly seems like the obvious choice to become a nudist… Or maybe Elsa, since the cold never bothered her. 😀
And that’s how it should be. Mermaids in children’s books were always topless when I was growing up. It was only in the 1980’s that the stupid prudery that keeps them covered up started.
I asked Google…
As depicted in the 1989 film, Ariel is the youngest of King Triton’s seven daughters, and is 16-years-old. Ariel has a vast fascination with the world of humans, despite contact being forbidden by her father, Triton, who hates humans.
Ariel | The Little Mermaid | Fandom
If it’s a problem for you, you can just suspend your disbelief a little further by pretending they increased her age to 18 when they “updated” her. Because she’s not real either way, so nobody is being harmed.
Works for me. It’s actually quite plausibly what Disney would do (if they were doing PN princesses at all of course) since IRL there seems to be a trend towards older princesses as attitudes change (Elsa’s 21!)
But for multiple reasons I don’t see a problem here. Not only is the picture completely innocent, but she is of course a mermaid, not a human. And mermaids have been depicted as not wearing clothes forever, including in the original, pre-Disney telling of this story.
Cato I have to ask: Do you just go back and troll on old posts for kicks?
That being said, I have no objection whatsoever to topless mermaids or nude cartoons. BUT, I agree that since Ariel from Little Mermaid was always depicted as being under 18, it’s pretty awkward for her to be topless or nude. So I agree that is creepy in that context but…A, it is a cartoon and B you had to specifically go back to find an old, out of date post to make the comment at all. Not trying to be rude to you or anyone else but…maybe you need to find something more useful to occupy your time then back-tracking to make complaints on a blog that never intended to do any harm?
Times change. Up until 2003 it was legal for Page 3 girls aged 16 and 17 to appear topless in UK newspapers. I’m sure that this would be a reboot of Ariel to comply with contemporary laws.
Nudist magazines used to show children all the time. Simple nudity is fine. I’ve nothing against naturism/nudism. They very much monitor what they allow in their magazines, websites, and even their campgrounds. Any hint of sexualizing the nudity is forbidden. Thus children are allowed. It is the sex, not the nudity. Two totally different things.
Sites like NWO try to normalize nudity, and that’s a wonderful thing. But there are posts being more sexual in nature. I’ve no problem with that either. However, to then introduce children into the mix? Nope!
Hit the “random” link sometime. Way too many old posts to go one by one. Sometimes a nice post, or sometimes something I dislike. Sometimes a more controversial post. More recently NWO placed a similar post behind an extra click.
Re-read my previous post. All I did was to identify the character. You seem to be the one passing judgement where none was given, but since you did, here’s my take on depicting children on a website devoted towards many sexual references: The two should never be mixed. Not in real life. Not in fantasies. Not in art. Not in cartoons. The reason is that such websites attract undesireables. Will they comment to their perverted desires? Will they start submitting images ever so closer to that fantasy they hold. Such tolerances invite the camel’s nose into the tent. That is for NWO to decide when or if to draw line.
For me, I prefer a bit of consistency. Place one underage anime behind an extra click? Why not place this one behind another click?
Cato would make a good cop at a speed trap, sitting there waiting to bust drivers for no tag light, or following too closely, or driving (not speeding) in the left lane, or failing to turn on headlights as soon as dusk falls, or…
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
You seem to have a problem with underage depictions being behind a simple click, yet no problem with slow drivers blocking the passing lane (which results in the person passing on the right getting a ticket).
Please exp[lain how a simple click is equal to the government issuing traffic tickets, fining the citizens for infractions?
Rapunzel also seems like an obvious choice for nudity since she lives alone.
Or possibly Moana since she is from a tropical island.
This is how it should have always been. It’s not fair that only the mermen got to be naked in the original.
I guess this caption sort of conflicts with another recent post, but technically that’s a whole new princess as opposed to a revised one.
Of the existing Disney Princesses, Ariel certainly seems like the obvious choice to become a nudist… Or maybe Elsa, since the cold never bothered her. 😀
Indeed
http://nudeworldorder.net/blog/22810/
And that’s how it should be. Mermaids in children’s books were always topless when I was growing up. It was only in the 1980’s that the stupid prudery that keeps them covered up started.