Um, ok am I the only one who notices that this picture is set during the holocaust and that the man in the picture is a Nazi? I mean, hello: Swastika, showers, barbed wire….I thought it should be obvious. This is not a happy fun kinky sex picture, and as a jew I actually find it quite disturbing. I mean I like your journal but this picture makes me a little uneasy.
Er, duh. Yeah, it’s a Nazi. A comic book Nazi, drawn in the 1970s probably. I thought that fact so obvious as to be not worth mentioning.
Why a pulp fantasy illustration should be “disturbing” or make anyone uneasy is quite another question. One can view (or republish) a fantasy illustration without endorsing the historical context in which the fantasy is set. Or, indeed, without endorsing the fantasy itself.
Lastly, ErosBlog has no policy of publishing only “happy fun kinky sex pictures.” I’m sorry if anyone thought differently.
I remember the “Men’s Adventure” mags from the 50s and 60s. They were on every drugstore magazine rack, showing pictures on the cover not much more covered than this one. In those days you could get busted for selling a Bunny Yeager nude model magazine, but these sado-maschistic offerings were OK. Once they disappeared, what happened to the readers? Did they convert their violence-tinged fantasies to something gentler, or did they get some other kick somewhere?
By “happy fun kinky sex pictures” I just meant that usually the stuff you post generally seems all in good fun and the people being spanked or whipped or whatever usually seem like they really enjoy it. I’m not trying to say that you should take it off, you obviously have a right to post whatever you want. I was just a bit shocked that something I find so unsettling would be an object of lust to others, but its not my place to say since its your website and you can display and get turned on by whatever you want and its not really my place to judge you for it.
Basically, it was probably not my place to say that I just sort of blurted it out because of how I felt, and I’m sorry if I’m “ruining the mood or something”.
Mrs. Napoleon, I was a bit rude to you the first time around because the tone of your post struck me as very rude indeed — the “am I the only one” and “hello” stuff made me feel you were accusing me of being dense or at least historically ignorant. And it was obvious you felt empowered to suggest that I shouldn’t have posted the image — a censorious impulse that always gets my hackles up.
Now that you’ve come back politely, I’ll explain my reasoning a bit more fully.
The thing is, there’s a censorious reflex in society, which causes individuals to condemn a wide variety of sexual fantasy and practice for the sole reason that it makes them uncomfortable. (Or, in your words, “disturbing”, “uneasy”, “shocking”, “unsettling”.) This reflex operates to suppress most sexual expression in American society. ErosBlog, in turn, is in fundamental opposition to that censorious reflex.
The thing is, I’m horrified at the idea of sexual thoughtcrime. I utterly reject the contention that a sexual fantasy or impulse or moment of being “turned on” by an idea or image can be bad or wrong. Sexual acts can be evil; sexual arousal cannot be.
So, back to cartoon Nazis. What made this image interesting to me was the hat. It raised the possibility in my mind that this was play — two concentration camp guards roleplaying and taking time for kinky sex while surrounded by hell. That, in the context, would be artistically interesting.
But, of course, it’s a cartoon; it doesn’t depict anything real and it’s impossible to say what the artist thought he was drawing. The only reaction that matters is the one in your head. Where you transgressed, in my opinion, is in sharing your negative reaction with us while strongly suggesting that (a) we would have had the same negative reaction but for stupidity or ignorance or (b) we should have had the same negative reaction you had.
There *are* people who happily play “camp guard and prisoner” sex games in their bedrooms. Do you think that’s evil? I don’t. So how can a cartoon illustrating that fantasy be evil? I don’t think it can be. If the fantasy, and the bedroom play, is OK, then the cartoon is OK.
If you would condemn the fantasy, or the play, then you are part of the repressive censorious forces to which ErosBlog is opposed. By seeming to condemn the cartoon, you appeared to align yourself with those forces, hence my somewhat rude and dismissive reaction.
Of course you don’t need to agree with me, but you’re not going to change my mind. Especially not when you start by saying, in effect “are you too dumb to know that’s offensive?” when the offensiveness is very much a matter of debate.
I agree with Bacchus’ interpretation of the comic, actually. That girl is definitely not a Jew.
People seem to think that any mention of Nazis that doesn’t say how evil they are must be wrong. I notice this a lot; I’m not just thinking of MrsNapoleon. This picture isn’t promoting Nazi goals or anything. It’s promoting kinky sex. Some of my Jewish relatives died in the Holocaust. I don’t think the Nazi guards killed them in sessions of intense kinky sex. Why, then, should I be offended by this? If those two want to have a good time together, it’s fine by me — they’re not hurting anyone (except maybe each other ;) ).
Nathan, you’re missing an important part of my point. “That girl” is a cartoon. She doesn’t have religion or ethnicity. She’s not “definitely” anything. And it’s foolish to take our own interpretation of the cartoon as truth, and then use that truth to argue with others. Because they’ll have a different interpretation, and they won’t be any wronger than us. Unless, as seemed to happen here, they try to cram their interpretation down our throats, and call us fools for having a different one.
What an interesting comic. As a Jew, yes, I flinch at the barbed wire/swastika/showers . . . but as a kinky bastard, the guard-prisoner dynamic is fabulous. While not *my* preferred setting for such a dynamic, we all get off on different things. The whole point of such fantasies (naughty comics included) is just that and I agree with Bacchus that we can’t take our own interpretations and use it for truth. I agree that this picture isn’t promoting Nazi goals. It *is* however, fetishizing a setting created by Nazis (settings/situations based on hate) and that is where the impulse on whether to censor this image/get offended by it gets sticky. But then, I go back to being turned on by the image (of anyone getting whipped/any kind of DS dynamic) and I agree again with Bacchus: “I utterly reject the contention that a sexual fantasy or impulse or moment of being â€śturned onâ€? by an idea or image can be bad or wrong.”
Thanks also, Bacchus, for clarifying that this is a cartoon and the people in it are not “definitely” anything. Let’s not fall back on stereotypes Nathan.
The woman drawn here doesn’t appear to have been made to look stereotypically Jewish, in fact, the lighter hair may suggest that she was meant to stereotypically rather “Aryan”.
Flogging for sexual pleasure has been around long before the Nazis. I’d hate to think that we humans could never again enjoy BDSM or “power exchange” sexual activities because of psychological associations with the Nazis.
This world would be in sad shape if our species decided that space travel could never be explored, due to associations with technologies developed by Nazis for their V-2 rockets.
I personally have never met anyone who dabbles in Nazi regalia sex fantasies who wants to actually revive death camps, or any type of genocide, or even any other type of real violence against anyone.
There may be psychopaths out there in the world, who are capable of some sort of diseased thinking, but I’m not willing to reduce everything on this planet to the lowest common denominator. I don’t want to have to live in a world where we have to veil women’s faces because there’s a guy out there somewhere who might lose control of his sexual impulses if he sees her lips or long eyelashes (or heaven forbid her bare ankles), or where we can’t enjoy those cute suntan lotion ads where the dog is tugging at the young child’s swim wear, just because some pedophile, in some corner of this planet, just might actually jerk off to the depiction of the partially bared bottom.