A pretentious theological analysis of oglaf’s pimple story

Oglaf is written from a very “pro-sex” standpoint. The author approves of most or all forms of sex. The author apparently regards sex as good in and of itself.

In the story, the man is committing a murder (or at least a homicide) to gain a physical transformation that he sees as a benefit. The killer is executed and sent to a god that does not approve of his preferences but is in charge of his eternal afterlife.

I can only interpret this as the author’s pro-sex idea of Christian heaven. The author is not thrilled at the idea of going to heaven, if God is not pro-sex. The author sees abstinence from sex as a physical disfiguration, not unlike acne.

Normies are waking up to Hollywood’s excessive decadence, and some of those normies are complaining about Show Dogs


Summary: Normies are waking up to Hollywood’s excessive decadence.

[lightly edited] reprint of someone else’s work:

I completely missed that a new kids movie called Show Dogs came out this weekend. The premise looks cute,

Max is a talking police dog


Max’s success is riding on whether or not he lets both his partner (for practice) and a stranger (the competition judge) touch his private parts.


Newsflash, folks: THIS IS CALLED GROOMING and it’s what sexual predators do to kids!

It gets worse. Maldonado describes the movie’s dramatic dog show finals scene:

The day of the finals come and if Max doesn’t let his private parts be touched, he may lose the competition and any hope of finding the kidnapped panda.  It all rests on his ability to let someone touch his private parts.  The judge’s hands slowly reach behind Max and he goes to his “zen place”.  He’s flying through the sky, dancing with his partner, there are fireworks and flowers-everything is great-all while someone is touching his private parts.

So a stranger touches Max’s privates and it MUST feel good because Max has gone to his happy place while being fondled.


Maldonado saw the movie with not only her kids, but her husband and her mother too. After the movie, all three adults felt uncomfortable with the “private parts” stuff. She says:

Turns out, it appears the Show Dogs movie has some problems.

After what I’ve learned about it from another parent review, I am SO GLAD my son did not see this movie. Let me explain. Terina Maldonado, parent reviewer for the Macaroni Kid website DID take her kids to see an advanced screening of the movie as part of her job with Macaroni Kid…but she came away with some seriously BAD feelings about the movie. I’ll let Maldonado explain in her own words.

It all started out fine, she says:

“The premise is great for a kids movie.  Max is a talking police dog (voiced by Ludacris) who is paired up with a human partner, Frank (Will Arnett) to infiltrate a prestigious dog show and rescue a kidnapped baby panda.  Being a tough dog from New York, Max has no business competing in a dog show but uses his street smarts to outperform the competition to get closer to the inner circle of kidnappers.  Along the way, Max learns lessons about trust and the need to accept help from others.  The usual hilarity ensues with dog farts, bites on the rear-end, and slap-stick bonks to the head which elicit giggles from the audience. “

It’s when Max the police dog learns what he has to do to truly go undercover and be accepted as a legitimate show dog that the trouble with this movie starts. WHAT does Max (and apparently all the show dogs) have to submit to?

Having his private parts touched and inspected. Yep. Maldonado continues:

“What could have been solely a fun movie for kids that would get my highest recommendation is damaged by a dark and disturbing message hidden, not so subtly between the fluffy dogs and glamorous parties of the show dog lifestyle.  As part of any dog show, contestants are judged on their abilities and physical attributes.  One part, in particular, is the inspection of the dog’s private parts.”

Max, of course, is  NOT cool with this, and when his partner Frank and a former champion show dog try to get him to accept this process, a certain dark and very dangerous theme for kids emerges. Maldonado explains:

“Since the inspection of the private parts will happen in the finals, Frank touches Max’s private parts to get him use to it.  Of course, Max doesn’t like it and snaps at Frank for him to stop.  Max is then told by the former champion, who has been through the process before, that he needs to go to his “zen place” while it happens so he can get through it.  More attempts are made by Frank to touch Max’s private parts, but Max is still having trouble letting it happen and keeps snapping at him.”

Max needs to get it together, see, and LET PEOPLE TOUCH HIS PRIVATE PARTS, or he might lose the competition and fail at his mission to rescue the kidnapped panda.

During the movie, I kept thinking, “This is wrong, it doesn’t need to be in a kids movie. Everything else in the movie is good fun except for this.”  Afterward, my husband mentioned that he picked up on this message too, as did my mother who saw the movie with us.

Maldonado then goes on to mention that she is a survivor of child abuse, and describes how she will talk to her kids about the movie and that part in particular and use it as a lesson to instill in them they lessons she’s already taught them about how “we never let anyone touch our private parts, what they should do if anyone tries.”

How the script and premise for this movie EVER got approved scares the CRAP out of me! This is 100% indoctrination. I will not apologize or care if anyone thinks I am crazy for thinking so. This is letting a movie of funny cartoon dogs teach our kids that hey, “sometimes ya just gotta let someone molest you.”

NOPE. Parents, do NOT go see the Show Dogs movie. And please share this so other parents won’t make this mistake before they know what’s up. The message here is WAY beyond inappropriate — it’s downright DANGEROUS for our kids!


Big Gay Kai’s Procedurally Generated Gay Nightclub Simulator

Every character in All Walls Must Fall is a procedurally generated gay man. If you thought fictional gay male characters were stereotyped, you haven’t seen how bad procedural generation can make a stereotype. There is no point paying attention to the characters, because they have no characterization. You can’t possibly care about them.

There is no rhyme or reason. There is no characterization. You can flirt man-to-man or kill man-to-man. It doesn’t seem to make any difference whatever you choose. I would like to pretend that the devs were making a subtle allegorical point about how the promiscuous sex of gay culture is depersonalizing, but let’s face it, they simply made a bad game with procedurally generated paper cut-outs pretending to be characters.

The game is initially charming because the techno soundtrack is truly inspired. The neon-lit nightclubs look impressive for the first two levels until you realize that every single level is a neon-lit gay nightclub.

Continue reading

Dragon Age: Inquisition and high-resolution 3-D models of white girls

If you are an ugly man but you like looking at white-skinned* supermodel-tier women, video games are a frequent source of entertainment. The girls in video games don’t have to deal with any of the real-world complications of being a super-skinny girl (e.g. anorexia, infertility, anemia).

However, it is not worth your time to play this unless you have high-resolution graphics. Consider the following high-resolution model of a supermodel:

In the high-resolution model, you can see pores on her impossibly perfect face. This will distract you from the fact that her voice actress is basically just “The Baroness” from G.I.Joe.

To make the comparison inescapable, they gave her a cute little Prussian duelling scar.

In the real world, Prussian dueling scars only became necessary when men were no longer getting real scars as a result of real medieval battles. A man with such a scar is already trying too hard; a woman with such a scar is just ridiculous.

The writing is beyond cartoonish here. This character is not a woman. This character is the embodied frustrations of a 14-year-old boy. He wants a girl he can hug, but he wants that girl to respect his aspirations to manliness. In fact girls are not like that. Girls are unfair. You can hug girls (most of the time they will hug you first) but girls don’t try to exercise manly valor. (Girls do sometimes try to get manly privileges. A feminist girl who manages to become a soldier typically wants to be an officer. Europe is currently burdened with female secretaries of defense. They did not achieve their positions by overwhelming competence.)

  Continue reading