Above you may admire (or cringe at, I suppose) a detail fished out of the right lower corner of a well known (or completely ignored, I guess) neoclassical painting. The mechanical implication is such that the little boy on his knees is about to lift the little girl and penetrate her, while she is about to cross her right ankle over his hip and take it. The peach abandoned on the floor, the particular look in her eye and gesture of her right hand, her left elbow infolded so as to support the reconfiguration all speak of a very amiable transition from contemplation to action. But then again, they're about five or six years old!
On one hand, it is incontrovertible fact that all through history human culture has had a very ambiguous and rather complex relation with infantile sexuality, going from absurd (complete denial thereof, as in the Victorian notion of childhood) to absurd (complete fixation upon it, as in the Freudian notion of childhood). Somehow the topic just doesn't lend itself to any sort of calm approach, which I suppose is alarming all by and of itself.i
On the other hand, it is incontrovertible fact that anachronism is the most common crime, and more than once, more than a million times the works, and words and deeds, and signs and meanings of generations past have been misinterpreted by the generation incumbent in ways which would have at best bewildered and at likeliest deeply offended the original authors. Just give a look to the US Constitution if you have any doubt remaining.
So which is it, dear reader ? Is it in fact an innocent configuration intended to carry no sexual innuendo whatsoever, or is it a deliberate posing of infants in such a manner as to suggest the most prurient, vile and obscene ? The judge wishes to know, who shall be taken to the gallows, the original author of the painting or the current author of this text.ii Whoddunit, dear reader ?
The whole painting, if you care, is below. It was made in 1883 by one William-Adolphe Bouguereau, a Frenchman. Muchly celebrated in his lifetime for his realistic style, he was a very conservative sort, confining himself to mythological scenes and the womanly body. He is little remembered today, because of progress, but at least you've all heard of the Impressionists so we can't say the period is entirely wasted on contemporaneity.
So which is it, dear reader, are they really about to fuck ? And can you believe they actually had tits, in 1883, and children suckled them, nude, and all this was painted and bought and sold ? And nobody arrested ?
Conceivably, the TOR network of 1883 was a lot stronger than it is today (because of progress). Or maybe it just wasn't run by inept US agencies yet, and consequently worked a lot better. Or maybe people weren't completely insane in the head yet, back then.
Who knows these things...———
- Just why do you think it is you can't calmly consider children fucking, hm ?
Consider the very amusing circumstance that the subset of leeches specialised in exploiting sexuality for political profit have managed to stereotype people who can't calmly consider homosexuality as "insecure" due to their "latent homosexuality". And you likely agreed with them, at some point, right ? Consequently, why is it that you can't quite calmly contemplate children fucking ? It isn't because you're insecure, because at the deep, dark, scary bottom of it all you are yourself a children fucker, is it ?
Scary how socialist brainwashing works when taken out of its common context and applied without direction from the leech party or permission from chief whip, isn't it ? [↩]
- Don't let your whiskey get in the way of truth, I say, if by whiskey you mean your love of me ; and if on the contrary by whiskey you mean you don't like me at all and wouldn't mind to see me hang, please take care not to let your passion get in the way of Justice, eh ? [↩]