Post: #1

So, I was on another forum where people were posting depressing comics. Then I came across this one and man... It is fucked up. Makes me remember that all this search for victim-hood these days had some kind of a legitimate start, it just got out of hand by people with no boundaries or sense.

Trigger Warning Guys.

Post: #2

Post: #3

The creator openly states he never suffered such hardships but wrote these following a single page cartoon. Seems he likes how creepy a perfect family supposedly is when you view it as an outsider.

Yet if you ever need a nice example of what an abusive house hold looks like here it is. Appeasment, shifting blame, blaming the victim, and defending the abuser all rolled into one french toast filled mess.

Also the french toast thing, you will notice that the mother, the appeaser, is constantly giving her daughter more then others. This is a common coping mechanism for those who cannot stop (you may prefer the term choose not to stop) the abuser and try to make the victim feel a little better. Here it is via food, and toys. I suspect somewhere is Clarissa once loving french toast and now a former treat is just a constant in her life.

The mother here fits the stay at home classical 1950s housewife image. She clearly enjoys money, and she is able to spend it. Husband has a job which grants him flexibility meaning he has some level of income. Yes this is a comic but you look at the Dad in the comics and you assume he is doing well based on how he looks.So it is in her interest to ensure not only that the abuser remains present but that the victim is happy enough to not tell anyone about the abuse. She calls her daughter an instigator, and denounces how she made her abuser feel, but at the same time she showers the kid in presents. French toast is given to her in large amounts and it is odd but the plate was already made. In some abusive homes you will easily find the victim by who picks the meal when the abuser is gone. Also notice when the daughter is about to vomit the mother stresses the daughter needs more toys. Never said why but as before the artist hit numerous signs of abuse dynamics.

Now the supporter is the oldest son. You get this by action, tone, as well as the subtle signs in the comic. Namely the fault to the home is not the abuser but the victim who brings attention to the abuse. This is the one who most likely will grow into an equal or lesser abuser as they grow up.

It is depressing but I think everyone needs to know signs of abuse to promote limiting it. Somewhat why, while harmful in the short term, anyone who is abused must be taped with said tape being used in lue of a person testifying. As victims often change their minds when faced with what occurs following an abuser leaving a home.

Post: #4

Number one, terrible thread title. Click-bait with no hint of thread topic.

Number two, you are looking way too into a shitty rape comic.

Post: #5

2/10 did not finish.

Post: #6

Most child abusers are women, not men. The abusive father/husband trope is an overused and lazy script writing approach. I constantly see it in TV shows.

We don't need it repeated here on the forum.

Post: #7

Meh. Not remotely-triggering. It's simply the clichéd depiction of nuclear family dysfunction designed to appeal to leftist critical theorist types who believe it's 'edgy'.

There's no truth of experience, no complexity to the characters. Even the exaggerated depictions of the characters rings false because the stereotypes are from another age:

- jock football star son;

- alcoholic mother in a pillbox hat cooking obsessively;

- predatory dad in 50's glasses and hat.

This was a progressive cliché for dark subversion that even as early as 1989 it had been done to death:



Reading this, I know the creator is not creating anything of originality or substance, and, as such, I knew exactly how this guy would look:



Note his book for sale there is a gritty parody / riff on Charlie Brown, much in the way John Scalzi built Redshirts from Star Trek. Critical theorists' relationship to the world comes from the stereotypes learnt from media consumption, not personal experience and observation.

Post: #8

Unlike the others I didn't think it was shitty at all, I thought it was extremely well done.

Post: #9

(09-04-2015 08:45 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

This is more what a typical abuser looks like, it's not an alpha male with a "dark secret". The whole comic is just loser projection.

Real abuse goes more like this: mom's boyfriend or kid's father in law, who picked up mom after mom rode the carousel and tried to snag something before hitting the wall. Then he develops a relationship with daughter based on creepy nice guy game before the daughter knows what's going on.

Post: #10

Funny how the lowest form of abuse comes from a two parent home, with both parents related to the kid. The creator of these comics should've gone edgier by actually depicting gay marriage and pedophillia, that would be more true and more controversial or even a single mom who invites strange men into her house and they abuse the kid. Doubt he ever will, clearly a leftist as others pointed out.

I love how this forum sees straight past the leftist propaganda and projection from these guys.

Post: #11

Is it me, or why do these dolts need to go along and remake innocent childhood things as gritty?

Especially this neckbeard's "gritty Charlie Brown". It reminds me of the TMNT movie. Do they really need to have a supper gritty and dark back story?

I almost hope these leftards actually get their "gritty" dark and bitter back story to happen to them.

Post: #12

I've got an idea for an edgy comic.



Later that night....

Post: #13

(09-04-2015 08:45 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Meh. Not remotely-triggering. It's simply the clichéd depiction of nuclear family dysfunction designed to appeal to leftist critical theorist types who believe it's 'edgy'.

There's no truth of experience, no complexity to the characters. Even the exaggerated depictions of the characters rings false because the stereotypes are from another age:

- jock football star son;

- alcoholic mother in a pillbox hat cooking obsessively;

- predatory dad in 50's glasses and hat.

That was my take as well. Or rather, I spent the whole story struggling to believe that it was authentic and giving up eventually.

I think to tell a good story with this subject matter would take either personal experience, a great deal of research, or an uncommonly close relationship to to someone who did. And research might help get the details right but you still might miss empathy for the characters.

Not that it's impossible to appreciate an artists depiction of an arbitrarily bleak scenario, but that's all it really seems to be.

Post: #14

(09-04-2015 09:09 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Is it me, or why do these dolts need to go along and remake innocent childhood things as gritty?

Especially this neckbeard's "gritty Charlie Brown". It reminds me of the TMNT movie. Do they really need to have a supper gritty and dark back story?

I almost hope these leftards actually get their "gritty" dark and bitter back story to happen to them.

Charlie Brown is already rather dark, if you don't let yourself be fooled by the light-hearted tone and you aren't blinded by rose-colored glasses. Not every strip is dark, of course, but many have a rather bleak perspective on human nature. Lucy is routinely cruel to Charlie Brown for her own amusement, and Charlie Brown just endures it because that's the way he is.

Post: #15

(09-04-2015 08:45 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

This is the exact type of guy you would expect to draw and write such shit. Look at his ironic hat and the stupid gaze he has to do before getting his photograph taken. It's supposed to advertise how hip, irreverent, and eccentric he is to dumb fucks who consume his "art."

I also bet he has that awkward anxious social vibe you get from genuine real life creeps in person too. Bet you can't get a word in a conversation with a guy like this without discussing his "achievements" or entertaining some other aspect of his serious social retardation or mental issues.

Post: #16

(09-04-2015 10:44 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  I bet you can't get a word in a conversation with a guy like this without discussing his "achievements" or entertaining some other aspect of his serious social retardation or mental issues.

That's exactly what a first date conversation with me is like.

Post: #17

(09-04-2015 08:45 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Critical theorists' relationship to the world comes from the stereotypes learnt from media consumption, not personal experience and observation.

Growing up in the 90s I remember watching these TV shows and other media where I would be constantly bombarded with depictions of big, mean, physically imposing bullies that would rain down hell on these helpless nerds with hearts of gold. As a little kid taking in all these sitcoms I remember being constantly fearful that upon ending up in high school I was gonna end up getting constantly being stuffed in the locker by the football players and popular kids and (insert 90s high school sitcom trope here).

Upon entering high school I noticed that the jocks and popular kids weren't the monsters they were depicted as. They either were nice and pleasant enough or they simply didn't care about you. I noticed that the people who tended to be the biggest assholes were typically the people on the lower end of the high school social totem pole - people that weren't on the absolute bottom but were at the borderline. To play armchair psychologist for a moment, I would say this was because the position of these people were precarious they felt more threatened and had to make it absolutely clear that there were people below them in the pecking order. If you were one of the popular kids, your position is secure and there's no need for you to make an example of someone to display your status.

All of this made me think that the behind behind these shows and involved in the creative arts in general are suffering from a huge case of sour grapes. Even after growing into adulthood, they still have a chip on their shoulders after years of seeing themselves as outcasts and perpetual losers and the works they create reflect this. Kids grow up consuming these works and end up becoming the SJWs you see today.

I think the growing popularity of geek culture is a big contributor to the current rise of the SJW politics. The fandoms surrounding comic books, sci-fi/fantasy, video games and the like have always been strongly aligned with SJW values, especially the pro-LGBT stuff and I think it's due to the reasons I stated above: lots of the people involved in these fandoms whether it the creators or consumers feel like they're being oppressed by people who by traditional standards would be considered to be more beautiful, more attractive, more competent so in the works they both create and consume they invert these values. And as much as these people would love to think they are so much more free thinking and intelligent then the average person who watches cable TV I think if anything they are bigger slaves to and more easily influenced by pop media since they are much bigger consumers of it. Who's going the bigger media whore, some guy who watches some reality show once a week or a guy who obsessively learns every detail of the latest Avengers movie?

A good example would be in the comic shown in this thread: take something that has been depicted as a positive force in society in this case the nuclear family and twist it around to show it as hypocritical and phony. Why do a lot of these people have the neon-colored hair along with the piercings and stupid ass tattoos while whining incessantly about "unrealistic depictions of women" and what "real beauty" should be? Because they know they don't live up to those standards. But instead of making any attempts at self-improvement they instead throw their energy into changing the standards so that it just happens to glorify the traits they possess....then they act like they are doing it out of pure altruism and that they derive no benefits from it.

Post: #18

This is basically resentment of middle America and WASP culture.

We've seen this again and again from Hollywood: The idea that behind families like those in "The Donna Reed Show" were rife with abuse, alcoholism, violence, etc. This point of view tried to persuade us that the average church-going nuclear family is the cause of problems, not the solution.

We might have bought this back in the 1980s when we had no larger frame of reference. But now we have instant access to studies and the like.

And what do they tell us? With one quick Google search I found a government study stating Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime and Kids of Single Parents More Likely to Witness Domestic Violence. Even the commies at NBC News had to admit that Children are at Higher Risk in Non-Traditional Homes. What about sexual abuse? Well, looks like Broken Families Increase Sexual Abuse Risk For Children.

I found all this in a few minutes. If we did real research, I'll bet we could find hundreds of studies and examples of how the non-nuclear family is more destructive to kids than the nuclear one. But anyone with basic observational skills grew up seeing this.

Seeing what? Well, there was the friend who had a chair broken over his back by his stepdad. The girlfriend who said she gave her first blowjob to her mom's boyfriend...when she was ten. The "single mom" ™ who was so over-the-top violent her daughters tracked down their fathers and went to live there. Then there was the single mom who dumped her kid with her boyfriend to move cross country with a new boyfriend she'd met online.

None of these are fictional examples, sad to say.

It's the biggest cliche in the world to pick on nuclear families. I dare any comic strip artist to do some drawings depicting what I just described above. That would be daring.

Post: #19

(09-05-2015 04:19 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  This is basically resentment of middle America and WASP culture.

We've seen this again and again from Hollywood: The idea that behind families like those in "The Donna Reed Show" were rife with abuse, alcoholism, violence, etc. This point of view tried to persuade us that the average church-going nuclear family is the cause of problems, not the solution.

We might have bought this back in the 1980s when we had no larger frame of reference. But now we have instant access to studies and the like.

And what do they tell us? With one quick Google search I found a government study stating Single-Parent Families Cause Juvenile Crime and Kids of Single Parents More Likely to Witness Domestic Violence. Even the commies at NBC News had to admit that Children are at Higher Risk in Non-Traditional Homes. What about sexual abuse? Well, looks like Broken Families Increase Sexual Abuse Risk For Children.

I found all this in a few minutes. If we did real research, I'll bet we could find hundreds of studies and examples of how the non-nuclear family is more destructive to kids than the nuclear one. But anyone with basic observational skills grew up seeing this.

Seeing what? Well, there was the friend who had a chair broken over his back by his stepdad. The girlfriend who said she gave her first blowjob to her mom's boyfriend...when she was ten. The "single mom" ™ who was so over-the-top violent her daughters tracked down their fathers and went to live there. Then there was the single mom who dumped her kid with her boyfriend to move cross country with a new boyfriend she'd met online.

None of these are fictional examples, sad to say.

It's the biggest cliche in the world to pick on nuclear families. I dare any comic strip artist to do some drawings depicting what I just described above. That would be daring.

Post: #20

(09-04-2015 09:09 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Is it me, or why do these dolts need to go along and remake innocent childhood things as gritty?

Especially this neckbeard's "gritty Charlie Brown". It reminds me of the TMNT movie. Do they really need to have a supper gritty and dark back story?

Not sure how old you are but the original TNMT comics from the '80's are very gritty and violent.

In the 90's cartoon adaptation, the Foot Soldiers were changed from humans to robots so they could depict the Turtles using their weapons on them.




That's Leonardo killing the Shredder. Every adaptation from the '90's to the present has been watered down so they can show it to little kids.


There's a video on the first page that shows what I'm talking about. . I hear people use TMNT often when they talk about cartoons being remade gritty when it's just the opposite in this case.

But re: OP's comic, I agree with you, this guy is using rape in his story to mask his lack of talent. Just a blatant use of shock value to get attention instead of actual humor and storytelling, nothing to see here.

And this is the worst thread title I've seen in years on rvf.

Post: #21

Going off of DOBA's comment about it would be daring to do a comic about a single parent household (among his other examples), I could just see the outrage. People just can't cope with anything but feel good shit about their situation. They don't care about others, they just care about how they feel. They don't want to imagine they are in a bad situation despite physical evidence that they are in a world of hurt. At least the guys here are gonna call out a person's BS on this forum.

It is very funny how people cope with evidence that goes against their belief systems. When presented with data that does not fit in a person's box they can 1) accept it without thinkng about it 2) deny it/block it out 3) think about it and consider if it is valid and possibly change how they view the world or 4) attack it because they cannot handle that the way they see the world is wrong. Granted there are some other outcomes.

Whereas in the past I bet people were much more patient and evaluated things objectively, now these days is if it doesn't fit a person's view of the world it gets attacked. No questions asked. People are so fragile theses days.

Edit: Ya I fucked up my pronouns.

Post: #22

If you want to see a good depiction of a terrible mother and the effects upon the children, go watch The 400 Blows. That was a daring film for its time, an early critic of the feminist movement and sexual revolution.

Post: #23

(09-05-2015 09:20 AM)Samseau Wrote:  If you want to see a good depiction of a terrible mother and the effects upon the children, go watch The 400 Blows. That was a daring film for its time, an early critic of the feminist movement and sexual revolution.

Truffaut is great, people always mistakingly think French new wave is pretentious hipster shit. When in fact they really did do a good job at depicting the listless nihilistic relationships between people in western culture and the direction it was all going.

Another good director is Rohmer he showed the carousel riding nature of the western woman in various subtle ways before it actually became a mainstream thing.

Post: #24

(09-05-2015 04:19 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  This is basically resentment of middle America and WASP culture.

We've seen this again and again from Hollywood: The idea that behind families like those in "The Donna Reed Show" were rife with abuse, alcoholism, violence, etc. This point of view tried to persuade us that the average church-going nuclear family is the cause of problems, not the solution.

I think this goes back the "sour grapes" theory I was espousing on my previous post.

It's the same mentality where people think that anyone who's wealthy or has some sort of ability above the norm either has acquired them in an unethical sense or were just given them on a silver platter or has some deep dark secret in the closet that if exposed would make them hypocrites.

Look at that clean cut white guy who takes his heterosexual family to the park on Sundays after church, he must secretly be molesting his children. Look at the pearl wearing housewife who dotes after her kids, she must be secretly hiding an Xanax addiction and so on.

It's all just a means of subliminal revenge against people that are seen as having things that the person angrily gnashing their teeth can't have. I'd say there's a big touch of teen angst rebellion that the person never quite outgrew - you rebel against something "safe" that's not really going to result in any negative consequences besides getting grounded or a finger wagging some old-fogey authority figure that no one thinks is cool anyways. If they actually wanted to rebel they would instead go against something that would bring down way more social and perhaps even financial consequences.

Post: #25

The OP's naiveté on this subject actually made me a little angry.

We had our own "child abuse hysteria" in Germany in the 90s, the "Wormser Prozesse". They were started by the feminist organisation "Wildwasser" and managed to break up 25 families, with disgusting results like one 70 year old grandmother being put into prison for sexual abuse of children and then dying there while the trials went on. After a few years of court trials EVERY SINGLE CASE was dismissed - but some of the children were not reunited with their INNOCENT parents, because the youth welfare service that placed them in foster families while the parents were on trial said that it had already been to long and that it would be too confusing for the children to switch families again...
During investigation, some of the children were interviewed on more than twenty separate times (by "social workers") for up to half an hour with a special puppet that had no facial features but a huge penis, and they were asked "Did your daddy ever touch you?", "Where did he touch you?" until they child finally pointed at the penis and then the father was thrown into prison.

I can't find the english equivalent of the german "Wormser Prozesse" Wikipedia page, but there were similar events in the english speaking world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_s...e_hysteria

Really OP, I can't understand that a repped RVF member can read a comic like that and not see through the typical "Man = bad, woman/girl = victim" and "let's use rape/sexual abuse to further the feminist cause" bullshit agenda. Of course there are actual cases of fathers sexually abusing their children, but this is a fictitious storyline made up to cast doubt on families and fathers.