Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Film/TV
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
die mothefuckers
wtf, havent u seen the kitten with its mashed up brains in snopes.com??
A normal human psyche strives for order and understanding in chaos. A becoming, psychologically healthy adult's mind is a constructive one, even though many times those with that mind are unable to implement anything beneficial to themselves or those around. Look up one of thousands of scholarly articles in the study of the behavior of psychological disturbed delinquents, and you will see these crush people reflected in another light.
Only a disturbed individual acts aggression out on things that are unable to defend themselves or there lives, including property and animals. Just like the actions of disturbed crush fetishism, a criminal's destruction of property has absolutely no benefit to anyone involved and only causes negative emotions in other individuals. The negative emotion conveyed is, in itself, the primary reason for most destructive acts, including crush, done by individuals. It is a pointless simple aggressive act that proves nothing. It is the negative emotion that the actions could possibly create that really drives these psychologically and emotionally disturbed individuals to view and create this content. A certain percentage of the human population always has and always will have a drive to participate in abusive behaviors, yet very few can justify to themselves or anyone, how one could murder or willingly participate in the murder of another living thing just for entertainment
These crush videos bring negative emotions, primarily fear, anger, and angst to the user during times in which the user is sexually driven. They get off on the simultaneous perception of fake sexual advances of a actress with death, fear, angst, and anger in the mix. This is obviously a society-wide taboo for reasons I don't have to explain, but the taboo itself is another enjoyment of the user. They enjoy themselves because they're doing something so wrong and taboo that it increases anger and angst in themselves that much more, while it would certainly anger others. Psychological evaluations of most violent rapist have shown that they also enjoy this combination of emotions, and occasionally the thought of it's effects on others, although they act on it in a completely different way.
There are many varying degrees of every problem, obviously some of these individuals will act out on there sexual aggression while some are going to be less likely to act on their disturbed fetish outside of their pathetic wanking station. Nonetheless, if any of these psychology unstable crush fetishists would realize they do have a problem, they may come to play a more beneficial role in society through counseling and psychiatry, but only if they could first admit that they have a serious problem.
gonna be the first... remember 1865 j.v. ?
I think you are being deliberately hyperbolic, but for the sake of argument, there are plenty of among us who indeed have not "fantasized about the ripe spectacle of a lovely female foot bearing down delicately, yet purposefully, on a lost ant, a fleeing beetle, or an addled earthworm". And you belie the concept by suggesting that a film which "substitutes grapes for bugs" is going to warm anybody up to the concept. For some it might, for others it may lose its appeal when what is crushed is inanimate, and for others there are limits (in no way morally whatever they say) to what they will see. Hint, try watching one of Vilencia's later crush films.
@mike_14:
The identification a crush fetishist makes is typically with the slain not the slayer. Hence, to the viewer, it is generally a masochistic compulsion and is very unlikely to be a precursor to psychopathic, violent behavior on their part.
That is not to say it is either healthy or morally justifiable. But neither is the consumption of a bacon cheeseburger.
In a sense, any act of cruelty whose purpose is to produce pleasure (there are plenty of "cruelty-free" nutritious alternatives but they do not taste as good to some), should not be morally weighted based on whether the cruelty is the means or the end.
@Edthefeetluvr:
The components of the fetish are more complex and more abstract than you assert. The claim that crush fetishists "are foot fetishists who like seeing female feet do what they do best" is an indication of this, as there are undoubtedly people aroused by female feet who would disagree that crushing small creatures is what they do best. The fetish is as much about power and powerlessness, the idea of (often casual) brutality, the allure of the femme fatale, and perhaps some idea of inevitability, as it is about feet.
@NAZI:
That's some moral high-ground you're standing on there. You are an idiot, if you want to make people feel bad, you should try a more subtle approach. If anything you are probably validating some crush fetishists, immoral as they are, by allowing them to easily think they are more moral than you.
@j.w.b:
There is no hell for him, or anyone else for that matter, to go to, get over it.
-AH
I think you are being deliberately hyperbolic, but for the sake of argument, there are plenty of among us who indeed have not "fantasized about the ripe spectacle of a lovely female foot bearing down delicately, yet purposefully, on a lost ant, a fleeing beetle, or an addled earthworm". And you belie the concept by suggesting that a film which "substitutes grapes for bugs" is going to warm anybody up to the concept. For some it might, for others it may lose its appeal when what is crushed is inanimate, and for others there are limits (in no way morally whatever they say) to what they will see. Hint, try watching one of Vilencia's later crush films.
@mike_14:
The identification a crush fetishist makes is typically with the slain not the slayer. Hence, to the viewer, it is generally a masochistic compulsion and is very unlikely to be a precursor to psychopathic, violent behavior on their part.
That is not to say it is either healthy or morally justifiable. But neither is the consumption of a bacon cheeseburger.
In a sense, any act of cruelty whose purpose is to produce pleasure (there are plenty of "cruelty-free" nutritious alternatives but they do not taste as good to some), should not be morally weighted based on whether the cruelty is the means or the end.
@Edthefeetluvr:
The components of the fetish are more complex and more abstract than you assert. The claim that crush fetishists "are foot fetishists who like seeing female feet do what they do best" is an indication of this, as there are undoubtedly people aroused by female feet who would disagree that crushing small creatures is what they do best. The fetish is as much about power and powerlessness, the idea of (often casual) brutality, the allure of the femme fatale, and perhaps some idea of inevitability, as it is about feet.
@NAZI:
That's some moral high-ground you're standing on there. You are an idiot, if you want to make people feel bad, you should try a more subtle approach. If anything you are probably validating some crush fetishists, immoral as they are, by allowing them to easily think they are more moral than you.
@j.w.b:
There is no hell for him, or anyone else for that matter, to go to, get over it.
-AH