Current Events > SJW mother calls for sleeping beauty ban because of 'non-consensual' kiss

(+) Yeah! (+)

a non consenual kiss isnt traumatising. ive had it done to me by both men and women. its nowhere near rape
---

Lmaoooo
---

You guys are completely missing parts of the story. :v The fact she could only be awoken with a kiss was part of the curse put on her. Blame Maleficent not the prince!
---

Wow what a bitch
---

Do you think she would sue the EMT if it gave her CPR?
---

So, uh, does sleeping beauty have a catheter or what?

CrimsonRage posted...

gadgaurd posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I wonder if she read the source material. She literally gets impregnated while sleeping and is awoken by labor pains.

Well that's... interesting.

In the original story, the Prince just finds Sleeping Beauty, rapes her, then goes home to his wife.

o_0

Man WTF kind of story is this?
---

Twin3Turbo posted...

Man WTF kind of story is this?

Fairy tales are weird, at least before Disney bowdlerizes the shit out of them.

Questionmarktarius posted...

So, uh, does sleeping beauty have a catheter or what?

girls don't pee or poop
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

SJW's are some of the most pathetic people on the planet. Literal children in adult bodies.

This. It's kind of a stretch to expect any intellectual thought from them. Speaking of which, it looks like they're already here on this very topic.
---

This sounds like the type of women who files charges on her husband whenever he gives her a kiss goodbye when she's asleep.

ClunkerSlim posted...

Southernfatman posted...

I'd rather get a non-consensual kiss than be stuck in a coma forever

Um, is that really the best message for little girls? You can either get raped or you can get knocked the fuck out. Which is it going to be?

I'm talking about the more well known version (the one that's told to young children) where it's just a kiss. I don't think little girls get any message out of it. It's just a story. I think adults are going back and looking far too deep into some things and that's where this whole thing is coming from. Kids don't think about this stuff.
---

Rub a dub dub..three men in a tub.

http://assets.amuniversal.com/fbe1f070b6c101350175005056a9545d
---

hurr

scar the 1 posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I literally can't understand what's wrong about critically reflecting on the contents of the stories we tell our children instead of just accepting them like religious sheep because of some sacred tradition.

I dont think calling for a ban is the same as thinking critically, but ok.

Calling for a ban is her conclusion after critically reflecting on it. You're perfectly free to disagree with her, but the sentiment I perceive from a lot of people is that it's stupid by default, because the plot requires the kiss, so that excuses it. That's a very weird motivation for why it's OK. As if the plot is somehow a divine scripture. I mean, if the question is "should kids' role models be doing x or does it set a bad example?", the answer could of course go either way, but motivating it with "it fits with the context of the plot" is mind-numbingly narrow-minded.

Well she's stupid if that's her conclusion after critically reflecting on it. Lol a ban? Dumbest solution to a nonproblem I can think of. Now if you're actually that bothered by it, a smarter solution would be to then teach children about consent after the story. Banning it is not only impossible, but has no benefit whatsoever.

The story already exists, the kiss is part of the story. And there's actually no need to argue it's "OK" because it isn't a problem in any way shape or form. Trying to label the kiss as nonconsensual sexual contact or going so far as to argue that this story encourages and promotes rape culture is only possible if you're trying to find something wrong with it by ignoring context that contradicts your claims as well as altering the actual story to fit your narrative.

It's just like people who claim beauty and the beast promotes beastiality. There's no "there" there.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Kinda fair to start reviewing what we tell our children imo. Kissing sleeping women without their consent is admittedly weird.

the story of sleeping beauty as presented by disney is that they were already in love, IIRC.

no critical thought was involved in her response, probably just the recent meme
---

CrimsonRage posted...

gadgaurd posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

I wonder if she read the source material. She literally gets impregnated while sleeping and is awoken by labor pains.

Well that's... interesting.

In the original story, the Prince just finds Sleeping Beauty, rapes her, then goes home to his wife.

Now that is fucked up and if we used that version it would be promoting bad stuff.
The Disney version is fine. If you are bothered by it, then like was said earlier, teach kids that you shouldnt go around kissing sleeping people.
---

Darkman124 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Kinda fair to start reviewing what we tell our children imo. Kissing sleeping women without their consent is admittedly weird.

the story of sleeping beauty as presented by disney is that they were already in love, IIRC.

no critical thought was involved in her response, probably just the recent meme

Well they met each other like once. Was it the Disney story she was talking about? Her response might be more sheepish than I give her credit for, sure, but in general Sleeping Beauty is definitely a story that doesn't really hold up to some modern standards of children's stories. Not just about the kiss without consent, mind you, but about the whole damsel in distress thing in general. Sleeping Beauty's entire identity is that she's beautiful.
---

kirito posted...

This sounds like the type of women who files charges on her husband whenever he gives her a kiss goodbye when she's asleep.

Something that no woman has ever did, ever.

Here's a thread from the woman's twitter account

https://twitter.com/Hallmeister/status/934701077332725760

nicklebro posted...

Well she's stupid if that's her conclusion after critically reflecting on it. Lol a ban? Dumbest solution to a nonproblem I can think of. Now if you're actually that bothered by it, a smarter solution would be to then teach children about consent after the story. Banning it is not only impossible, but has no benefit whatsoever.

The story already exists, the kiss is part of the story. And there's actually no need to argue it's "OK" because it isn't a problem in any way shape or form. Trying to label the kiss as nonconsensual sexual contact or going so far as to argue that this story encourages and promotes rape culture is only possible if you're trying to find something wrong with it by ignoring context that contradicts your claims as well as altering the actual story to fit your narrative.

It's just like people who claim beauty and the beast promotes beastiality. There's no "there" there.

Well let's take some time to look at what she's actually saying, because she isn't saying to outright ban it. She's asking that it should be taken out of the curriculum for young kids. She even goes on to say:
I dont think taking Sleeping Beauty books out of circulation completely would be right. I actually think it would be a great resource for older children, you could have a conversation around it, you could talk about consent, and how the Princess might feel."
---

If a sleeping peck on the lips is causing you outrage, probably time to admit your cause is out of real problems. Maybe focus that "rape culture" rage on places where it's actually a problem, like in the Middle East and Africa.
---

The Admiral posted...

If a sleeping peck on the lips is causing you outrage, probably time to admit your cause is out of real problems. Maybe focus that "rape culture" rage on places where it's actually a problem, like in the Middle East and Africa.

Deflection 101, great work there Admiral :)
---

scar the 1 posted...

The Admiral posted...

If a sleeping peck on the lips is causing you outrage, probably time to admit your cause is out of real problems. Maybe focus that "rape culture" rage on places where it's actually a problem, like in the Middle East and Africa.

Deflection 101, great work there Admiral :)

No, virtue signaling for attention is the problem. If this issue is actually important to you, devote your energy to the appropriate targets. Don't misuse the term "rape culture" over stupid shit like this. And if you're too scared to focus on the real rape cultures or would rather criticize petty nonsense like this because it gets you attention, you're useless to society and shouldn't be taken seriously.
---

The Admiral posted...

scar the 1 posted...

The Admiral posted...

If a sleeping peck on the lips is causing you outrage, probably time to admit your cause is out of real problems. Maybe focus that "rape culture" rage on places where it's actually a problem, like in the Middle East and Africa.

Deflection 101, great work there Admiral :)

No, virtue signaling for attention is the problem. If this issue is actually important to you, devote your energy to the appropriate targets. Don't misuse the term "rape culture" over stupid shit like this. And if you're too scared to focus on the real rape cultures or would rather criticize petty nonsense like this because it gets you attention, you're useless to society and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Elaborated deflection, doing the Lord's work here.
---

scar the 1 posted...

The Admiral posted...

scar the 1 posted...

The Admiral posted...

If a sleeping peck on the lips is causing you outrage, probably time to admit your cause is out of real problems. Maybe focus that "rape culture" rage on places where it's actually a problem, like in the Middle East and Africa.

Deflection 101, great work there Admiral :)

No, virtue signaling for attention is the problem. If this issue is actually important to you, devote your energy to the appropriate targets. Don't misuse the term "rape culture" over stupid shit like this. And if you're too scared to focus on the real rape cultures or would rather criticize petty nonsense like this because it gets you attention, you're useless to society and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Elaborated deflection, doing the Lord's work here.

I guess you libs who can never defend your points have added "deflection" to your arsenal along with "racist" as a way to shut down conversations you can't win. Noted for future topics with you.
---

scar the 1 posted...

nicklebro posted...

Well she's stupid if that's her conclusion after critically reflecting on it. Lol a ban? Dumbest solution to a nonproblem I can think of. Now if you're actually that bothered by it, a smarter solution would be to then teach children about consent after the story. Banning it is not only impossible, but has no benefit whatsoever.

The story already exists, the kiss is part of the story. And there's actually no need to argue it's "OK" because it isn't a problem in any way shape or form. Trying to label the kiss as nonconsensual sexual contact or going so far as to argue that this story encourages and promotes rape culture is only possible if you're trying to find something wrong with it by ignoring context that contradicts your claims as well as altering the actual story to fit your narrative.

It's just like people who claim beauty and the beast promotes beastiality. There's no "there" there.

Well let's take some time to look at what she's actually saying, because she isn't saying to outright ban it. She's asking that it should be taken out of the curriculum for young kids. She even goes on to say:
I dont think taking Sleeping Beauty books out of circulation completely would be right. I actually think it would be a great resource for older children, you could have a conversation around it, you could talk about consent, and how the Princess might feel."

Well it's a de facto ban for a certain age range, but yes you are right that I should have taken more care in how I portrayed her words.

But everything I said still applies. There's no reason to treat the kiss as the story promoting unwanted sexual contact because the actual narrative has completely different context surrounding it that contradicts that notion.
---

The Admiral posted...

I guess you libs who can never defend your points have added "deflection" to your arsenal along with "racist" as a way to shut down conversations you can't win. Noted for future topics with you.

Hey look, admiral once again accusing liberals of something that conservative do on a regular basis. Buttery males!
---

nicklebro posted...

Well it's a de facto ban for a certain age range, but yes you are right that I should have taken more care in how I portrayed her words.

But everything I said still applies. There's no reason to treat the kiss as the story promoting unwanted sexual contact because the actual narrative has completely different context surrounding it that contradicts that notion.

And that context is lost on young kids. Heck, the book she's criticizing has kids instructing an adult saying "If you kiss her she wakes up, everyone knows that!", which is already removed from the initial context.
Look, we set age limits on media because kids are impressionable. We don't let kids see too explicitly violent stuff because we acknowledge that they are too young to handle that type of content. The article mentioned in the Twitter post above makes this quite clear: "This idea that fairytales are stagnant, that they dont shift and change with the times just doesnt hold water. At other points in history, people have stopped and asked themselves if these stories are still appropriate and adapted them to their audience accordingly."
That the narrative of the fairy tale makes a kiss necessary isn't really a good argument for your position. Heck, even Admiral's argument is better. His is just an opinion that "it's not a big deal". We can argue back and forth on that and we'll probably not agree in the end, but it's a sound argument. Yours isn't sound, because it's based on the premise that a six-year-old kid is capable of abstract thinking to a degree that most kids that age simply aren't.

EDIT: And btw, it's not a de facto ban. Schools aren't the only venue where kids have access to books. If parents want to read Sleeping Beauty to their six-year-olds, they could still do it after schools removed this from the curriculum.
---

The Admiral posted...

I guess you libs who can never defend your points have added "deflection" to your arsenal along with "racist" as a way to shut down conversations you can't win. Noted for future topics with you.

First of all you probably don't think rape culture is a thing, right?
Second, even if it were a thing, you're not affected negatively by it, so you have zero credibility in judging how "big of a deal" it really is.
Third, your argument is literally a deflection. What can I do but call a spade a spade?
---

scar the 1 posted...

nicklebro posted...

Well it's a de facto ban for a certain age range, but yes you are right that I should have taken more care in how I portrayed her words.

But everything I said still applies. There's no reason to treat the kiss as the story promoting unwanted sexual contact because the actual narrative has completely different context surrounding it that contradicts that notion.

And that context is lost on young kids. Heck, the book she's criticizing has kids instructing an adult saying "If you kiss her she wakes up, everyone knows that!", which is already removed from the initial context.
Look, we set age limits on media because kids are impressionable. We don't let kids see too explicitly violent stuff because we acknowledge that they are too young to handle that type of content. The article mentioned in the Twitter post above makes this quite clear: "This idea that fairytales are stagnant, that they dont shift and change with the times just doesnt hold water. At other points in history, people have stopped and asked themselves if these stories are still appropriate and adapted them to their audience accordingly."
That the narrative of the fairy tale makes a kiss necessary isn't really a good argument for your position. Heck, even Admiral's argument is better. His is just an opinion that "it's not a big deal". We can argue back and forth on that and we'll probably not agree in the end, but it's a sound argument. Yours isn't sound, because it's based on the premise that a six-year-old kid is capable of abstract thinking to a degree that most kids that age simply aren't.

EDIT: And btw, it's not a de facto ban. Schools aren't the only venue where kids have access to books. If parents want to read Sleeping Beauty to their six-year-olds, they could still do it after schools removed this from the curriculum.

You really think saying "My argument is sound because I agree with it, yours is not sound because I disagree with it" means anything? This fairytale has been around forever, so tell me, what negative effects has it had on anyone? This debate didn't arise out of a negative consequence of a child misunderstanding the story, it started solely because of one lady who is trying to manufacture an issue where there isn't one.

Both of our arguments are sound since they are both rooted in logic, but my argument is the only rational one since it's the argument that matches actual reality, rather than some imaginary land where this kids story is gonna harm the little children's minds.
---

I'm not saying your argument isn't sound because I disagree, I'm saying it isn't sound because your premise is wrong. To demonstrate this I give you Admiral's argument as an example of a sound argument that I disagree with.

An argument being logical is a valid argument. A sound arguments is one whose premises are true. Your premise, that it doesn't matter because in the context of the story the kiss is fine, isn't true because young kids can't grasp context well.

As for why this debate arose, well there's this whole big group of women who feel like there are certain structures that help men do what they want, and that protect them from repercussions. You can deny those structures if you want. Have fun.
---

It's a sad age we live in when some random person's tweet is news
---

scar the 1 posted...

I'm not saying your argument isn't sound because I disagree, I'm saying it isn't sound because your premise is wrong. To demonstrate this I give you Admiral's argument as an example of a sound argument that I disagree with.

An argument being logical is a valid argument. A sound arguments is one whose premises are true. Your premise, that it doesn't matter because in the context of the story the kiss is fine, isn't true because young kids can't grasp context well.

As for why this debate arose, well there's this whole big group of women who feel like there are certain structures that help men do what they want, and that protect them from repercussions. You can deny those structures if you want. Have fun.

Actually you're trying to put words in my mouth and come up with a "premise" I never came close to mentioning. My actual premise is that this story is not dangerous or harmful to little kids, it's been around forever and has never been an issue until this lady made a fuss. Again, your argument fails because actual reality has already proven that there's nothing wrong with children reading this story. There's no reason to hide it from them. This is why your argument fails, it assumes there's an issue when actual reality has already proven that to be untrue

Lol and you've already admitted I'm right without knowing it. This issue didn't arise because there was a negative consequence from children reading this story, it came about because some women have a problem with it. You literally just said that.

So until you can actually prove that this story damages children, your argument is irrational and baseless. Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong here, and reality is what you're arguing against.
---

Imagine actually being an SJW. Imagine how miserable they must be since everything they see is problematic.

Imagine thinking that you could bubble wrap all of life to protect yourself from nicks and cuts.

I'm honestly astonished more and more weekly at how pathetic SJW's are.
---

People like that make SJWs look bad.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Imagine actually being an SJW. Imagine how miserable they must be since everything they see is problematic.

Imagine thinking that you could bubble wrap all of life to protect yourself from nicks and cuts.

I'm honestly astonished more and more weekly at how pathetic SJW's are.

I agree. But what's good about them for liberals like me is they highlight all of the faults in liberalism so us sane liberals know how to avoid our own pitfalls. Conservatives should do the same with the alt right and whoever is actually voting for Roy Moore
---

nicklebro posted...

Actually you're trying to put words in my mouth and come up with a "premise" I never came close to mentioning.

nicklebro posted...

There's no reason to treat the kiss as the story promoting unwanted sexual contact because the actual narrative has completely different context surrounding it that contradicts that notion.

???

As for it being harmful or not, obviously the mother in question believes it's harmful, and believes that it plays a role in building the culture where men feel they are entitled to women's bodies. So yeah, she has a problem with it, but that doesn't exclude that she thinks there's a negative consequence from children reading this story. For boasting about your arguments being rooted in logic, you're not using it very effectively :)
Additionally, it'd be good of you to specify which argument I presented that you say is irrational or baseless. Cheers!
---

shnangyboos posted...

Idiot.

I mean to be fair

In the original story he finds her so beautiful that he rapes her as she sleeps

Then leaves
And she has babies
Then dies

Its also sometimes implied she was around 12
---

creativerealms posted...

People like that make SJWs look bad.

Sure, if by "people like that" you mean SJWs. Being an SJW is just bad. Even if it was originally good, it's been coopted by freaks. Much like feminism tbh.
---

It was only a kiss.

It was only a kiss.
---

scar the 1 posted...

nicklebro posted...

Actually you're trying to put words in my mouth and come up with a "premise" I never came close to mentioning.

nicklebro posted...

There's no reason to treat the kiss as the story promoting unwanted sexual contact because the actual narrative has completely different context surrounding it that contradicts that notion.

???

As for it being harmful or not, obviously the mother in question believes it's harmful, and believes that it plays a role in building the culture where men feel they are entitled to women's bodies. So yeah, she has a problem with it, but that doesn't exclude that she thinks there's a negative consequence from children reading this story. For boasting about your arguments being rooted in logic, you're not using it very effectively :)
Additionally, it'd be good of you to specify which argument I presented that you say is irrational or baseless. Cheers!

Yes that's the explanation for why your premise is wrong. My own argument is not based on yours. My argument is no matter what you think, the actual results that exist in this reality prove that you're manufacturing an issue where there is none. IDK why you need this spelled out for you. You don't get to decide what someone else's point is, otherwise you could just have this debate by yourself.
---

So she rather her to sleep forever until she dies than get a kiss to save her life? SMH...
---

And lol you literally just proved your argument is based on this woman's opinion, and her opinion is not rooted in reality bit rather her own feelings and assumptions. She thinks this story is damaging. Does that mean it is? Of course not, but you're literally arguing that one woman thinking something somehow trumps reality.

"She believes this book is harmful" so the fuck what?
---

Also guys, don't forget that the whole reason the splinter of the sewing wheel is the plot point of the curse is that after she births the children in her sleep, the babies attempt to nurse on her fingers and sucks out the splinter, which in turn dispels the sleep.
---

nicklebro posted...

but you're literally arguing that one woman thinking something somehow trumps reality.

No I'm not? You accuse me of putting words in your mouth, even you have those words on the very same page. And in the next breath you put words in my mouth.
---