It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Disney endorse pedophilia? You be the judge. ** Warning: image may be offensive **

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
Well, I grew up with Donald Duck and Ducksberg, and at a very early age I did wonder, why are they wearing no pants?

I remember asking my dad about the issue. I don't remember the answer though, but guess what turns me on today... ....??

In Scandinavia the sexual undertones of Disney characters is a 5 decade old issue. In the sixties there was a underground comic (Norwegian, I think) indulging the wellknown figures in just about any sexual activity imaginable.

Later on we had a band named Disneyland After Dark. For many years they had that name, but when they rose to stardom and toured the States, they were legally forced to change it to D.A.D.

So yes, in Scandinavia we know everything about Disney sex. I think already in the fifties we had moral-religious movements to get Daisy and Donald to cover up. To no avail.


Mmm, that's interesting. I'm from Holland, but I had never heard of the phenomenon before today. However, I think I did hear once about people wanting Donald to wear pants.

Off course, a duck would look silly, wearing pants and it wouldn't be comfortable at all, you know with those tail feathers.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Yes, but in the few episodes where Donald is about to be seduced by some femme fatale (also a duck), she'll have boobs, but also a decent attire covering the lower parts of the body.

Another thing is the family relations. Both Donald and Mickey have nephews... but no or very few hints to their origine. There's the link to ?Grandma Duck? (not sure the English name), but who the heck was her children?

I think Don Rossa have one or two stories touching the issue, but Carl Barks himself, the original creator of the Ducksberg universe never touched it.

However in Norway doctoral thesis have been written on the subject of that universe, so yes to my generation it's very real.

[edit sp]


[edit on 9/1/2008 by khunmoon]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by khunmoon
 


Well, I'll certainly will look into this, I grew up with Donald Duck(who didn't), I received the magazine every week, and off course watched the cartoons. This is pretty interesting.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by depth om
He's starin at the crotch of whoever rides and he seems to be enjoying himself. "Come ride "Donald's Love Machine!" The ride bounces around of course, if you saw video of this happening your mind would come to quite the logical conclusion.


Are you serious? " HE " is watching? Uh, buddy, the Donald Duck is NOT REAL, and he does not have eyes that see, OK? He is NOT ' looking ' at anything. He cannot look. How do you know the ride bounces around? Even if it does, are you saying that it will cause sexual excitment in preadolescents? If you have a twisted mind, naturally you will see the lacivious and nasty in anything that can interpreted in that way. Someone with a heathly mind will not automatically see the filthy interpretation.

My God, is there NO age of innocence anymore? Is the world so fouled up that even tiny kids are seen as sexually aware because they encounter Disney rides that can be seen by a warped mind as dirty? What a shame!!

In the old days, meaning not too long ago, if you told someone that you saw something weird sexually with a Donald Duck ride they would think that YOU were the pervert; Of your mind is in the gutter, then of course you will see the filth being moved passed you...if your mind is in the real a and decent world, then you will not see the nasty in everything. If Donald was turned the other way, some nutjob would say that it was alluding to' doggy style ' or some such other nonsense. There is always a lowest common denominator, and a highest one. I prefer the view from above, and will leave the gutter view to others.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Love
 

It might be just a photoshopped image.



reply to post by Crakeur
 

Hey crakeur, how did you come across that website?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86

Originally posted by depth om
He's starin at the crotch of whoever rides and he seems to be enjoying himself. "Come ride "Donald's Love Machine!" The ride bounces around of course, if you saw video of this happening your mind would come to quite the logical conclusion.


Are you serious? " HE " is watching? Uh, buddy, the Donald Duck is NOT REAL, and he does not have eyes that see, OK? He is NOT ' looking ' at anything. He cannot look. How do you know the ride bounces around? Even if it does, are you saying that it will cause sexual excitment in preadolescents? If you have a twisted mind, naturally you will see the lacivious and nasty in anything that can interpreted in that way. Someone with a heathly mind will not automatically see the filthy interpretation.

My God, is there NO age of innocence anymore? Is the world so fouled up that even tiny kids are seen as sexually aware because they encounter Disney rides that can be seen by a warped mind as dirty? What a shame!!

In the old days, meaning not too long ago, if you told someone that you saw something weird sexually with a Donald Duck ride they would think that YOU were the pervert; Of your mind is in the gutter, then of course you will see the filth being moved passed you...if your mind is in the real a and decent world, then you will not see the nasty in everything. If Donald was turned the other way, some nutjob would say that it was alluding to' doggy style ' or some such other nonsense. There is always a lowest common denominator, and a highest one. I prefer the view from above, and will leave the gutter view to others.


Dude please don't take the moral high ground. Like I said, it doesn't take a pervert to see a sexual reference there.
Do you realize you accuse some people here of having warped minds?
I would say it takes a warped mind to not see anything wrong with that picture.

And I think the guy knows that Donald Duck isn't real, thanks for pointing that out, though!
What makes him think the ride bounces? Wouldn't be much of a ride if it didn't, huh?

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Thanks for that link Crakeur. There's some really good reading on there. Did you get a load of that pirate?


And no, the little girl is not riding on Donald's belly or chest, She's right where some twisted freak wanted her to be. Most, if not all the rides of that nature that I have seen always have the child riding on the back.

Peace


DCP

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I would say she is riding on his stomach not his groin area.

If it condones anything, I would say, it would be beastiality not pedophilia



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by an0maly33
one thing you have to understand is that disney probably didn't make that ride.


They sure as hell endorsed it, though.

Disney paid for it. Disney had say in the design. Disney was more than likely involved in the design. Disney accepted that as the final product. Disney put that on their property.

So as long as they don't physically make it, that makes everything OK?

What's next? Aladdin statues with bomb vests?

What if you saw that?

Better yet, would you ever see that? No? Why? Because Disney wouldn't put it on their property whether they made it or not?

Then why did they put this on their property?

With sexual terms, references, and body language so ingrained in our culture and in our minds, anyone with half a brain can't look at that and NOT notice how that can be perceived as a perverted idea for a ride.

Given Disney's track record with perverted images and audio in their movies, you can't put anything like this past them.

Just another case of hidden in plain sight. People can walk past it, look right at it, take pictures of it, video tape it, it's all right there, and they still can't see it.:shk:



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
If this was designed and manufactured by a child, I could understand. Because it was designed by an adult - pedophile.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
i dunno. i just don't see anything wrong with this unless i try to think of it in a perverted way. it doesn't stretch my imagination at all to wonder if the person that made (and those that approved its design) just didn't think of it that way. they probably just thought "hey what if the kids got to ride on donald's belly instead of his back so they could see his face?"
i'm pretty sure i recall seeing this pose in a cartoon, or at least i can imagine it - floating on water or sliding down a snowy hill...

see what you want, but i guarantee the kids are just having a good time and have no concept of the idea that they are (even in someone's imagination) involved in anything lewd. i'd have no problem letting my kid ride this. 2 minutes of fun for 25 cents? let's move on.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I think they take this to the extreme... I mean, come on, it takes a person to watch those videos a hundred times and slow them down to see it.....

Also, people were getting married at 13 years old when Walt Disney started creating his cartoons.. People reach sexual maturity when they're still considered kids and hormones cause them to want to have sex..

come on and get real folks............



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


If all that stuff's real, that's some bad ass shizz man!



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
you are not supposed to discuss illegal topics here. per T&C



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I've heard such claims before.

They mentioned things like the dildo shape of a tower in Little Mermaid castle, the SEX letters in Lion King (Disney claimed it was meant to be SFX), naked woman in a window in an old cartoon with mice and much more. I know they once recalled a movie because of the boobies in the window and later released an edited version, where this was removed.

There were also claims about Disney Land employing pedophiles and also having their own police with almost absolute authority on their grounds.

Then there was the thing about some kids playing something from Disney, and starting by saying "Let's pretend our parents are dead", since this is the plot in many of their movies.

After all that i started jokingly reffering to Disney as "The terrorist organisation".

But that does not mean i believe all this. There are certain aspects of it which can't be ignored, but it could have been the work of a few disturbed individuals and not Disney's general agenda.

I've also watched a brazillian preacher talk about Disney being the antichrist on YT. But these people always find something to be angry at..

There are weird and interesting things about Disney, but i think the evidence is hardly conclusive.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha Grey
you are not supposed to discuss illegal topics here. per T&C


I didn't know there were illegal topics.. I thought we were just not supposed to discuss our own illegal activities, or promote them.

But if we don't discuss / analyze / disclose other peoples illegal activities, we might as well drop 90% of the discussions, i think.

Unless i misunderstood something?



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Alpha Grey
 


Not sure what you're referring to. One Super Moderator has already posted in this thread, so I don't think any rules are being broken, and the thread was moved to Skunk Works, so the sub-forum itself is speculative in nature, left up to the reader to make his or her own decision.

On topic, let's not forget people, this is more about subliminal messages. The subliminal mind works in ways that we have yet to fully understand. If certain entities have harnessed this power then they certainly know how to fulfill their agenda without being super obvious about it. It's just one piece of the puzzle as far as corruption (intended I believe) of our youth.

Peace



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by Alpha Grey
you are not supposed to discuss illegal topics here. per T&C


I didn't know there were illegal topics.. I thought we were just not supposed to discuss our own illegal activities, or promote them.

But if we don't discuss / analyze / disclose other peoples illegal activities, we might as well drop 90% of the discussions, i think.

Unless i misunderstood something?



if you even talk about "pot" here it gets removed so what's the difference ?? pedofilia is illegal 100%....same as weed.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alpha Grey
if you even talk about "pot" here it gets removed so what's the difference ?? pedofilia is illegal 100%....same as weed.


If i said "Pot is very good for entering higher states of consciousness." i would understand, why it would get removed, since it would be considered promoting drug use.

But if i say "Some people think pot allows them to enter higher states of consciousness, while it really just causes them to think so and can even cause full blown psychosys and delusions in emotionally unstable people." i don't think it would violate T&C. Especially, since it might explain certain peoples ideas.

Conspiracies are also illegal, but we discuss them here, just like any other illegal government activities, or something similiar.

I don't think it's illegal to discuss and analyze other's illegal activities.

Pedophylia might be different, since it's a very sensitive subject, but still, people come here to learn the truth, no matter how ugly it might turn out to be.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Besides, if the government or an organisation is involved in illegal activities, people should have the right to know about it, so they can better prepate and protect themselves and in this case their children.

If it is true, that is. The OP is asking just this: Is it true or not...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join