:eek:
Bad, astro, BAD!
Now where did I put that eye-removal fork? 
If that was in front of my Shop Rite, I would be on it so fast, for my next Author’s Photo . . .
For your book on the Canarda Sutra?
Set it up in a bar, and you’ve got a money maker. Better than the mechanical bull!
Just think how much fun the Chicken Lady could have with that ride!
Bwah!
Perfect. I can really hear that. “Fibreglass duck, fibreglass duck, I love to ride my fibreglass duck.” 
I must be a total square.
Other than Donald’s viewpoint, why is this attraction considered “extremely wrong”?
The user, in this case a little girl, is seated nowhere near the duck’s cloaca, the home of the male duck’s sexy goodies.
Can someone tell me what’s so bad about this ride?
Donald is anthropomorphized, though. Because he’s partly human, we fill in the blanks for his genitals fore of his legs, rather than imagining a ventral orifice on him.
His physical attitude (if we project human traits onto him,) combined with the undulating motion that we expect from a coin-op kiddy-ride, is extremely sexual.
Why do I feel like we’re playing “Man from Mars?”
Anthropomorphism
Replace the duck with a human male. Most of Disney’s animals are not animals, but are representations of human qualities or types.
Sure, the positions still may not quite match up, but just having a girl straddle a prone man gives rise to thoughts of possible coitus. The fact that it’s a “ride” makes it even easier to go that extra few inches in many people’s minds. And to some, it looks like she’s humping him.
Larry must have posted while I was typing. Same idea from two completely different people. So, you tell me, does it look like the little girl is fucking an anthropomorphised cartoon animal or what?.
I think most people get that idea – it’s just odd to have to actually verbalise it.
Wee nitpick: Donald is supine. If he were prone, we’d have to imagine a hot pink Barbie-branded juvenile strap-on plunging deep into his cloaca.
And we wouldn’t want to do that.
I always get prone and supine mixed up.
I blame Warner Brothers.
Perhaps the only time Mae West blushed in public: She had for many years used “I am not prone to argue” in its double-entendre sense, being tame-but-risque enough to pass censorship and still titillate (as many of her great lines were). Then H.L. Mencken explained to her the difference between “prone” and “supine.”
You know, since you’ve pointed it out, although anatomically it doesn’t make any sense at all, if that were an adult on the duck I guess I might get another idea. Irrespective of the “average” observer’s questionable anthropomorphization, I would not independently have arrived at that conclusion. Further, I don’t see young’uns as sexual things, so a little girl’s undulations mean nothing to me.
Twice you paint me as “odd” for thinking innocently about children. Why?
Laughter. Guilt. Laughter. Guilt. Laughter. Guilt . . . .
No offense meant – it simply is odd, in the general sense of the word. There’s no value judgement there-- it’s just that the usual reaction to seeing that picture is “Oh my God! What the…?”
If your semiotic processes are such that you really don’t see anything suggestive, either because you conceptualize an anthropomorphized character as though it were an actual duck, or (like, in all probability, everyone else in this thread) you don’t think about children in an erotic way, then that’s a peculiarity that is fairly well outside of most people’s general experience.
When humanoid forms are arranged with certain configurations of limbs, it doesn’t matter if the humanoids in question are totally asexual – most people will interpret it as a sex tableau.
Intellectually, I know that artists’ mannequins don’t have any sexual organs. Hell, they don’t have any sexual or even personal features at all. They just have a vaguely human form. Still, when I see something like this, I don’t spend a lot of time puzzling it out – and I’d be surprised if anyone else did, too. It’d be… …odd.
Now, these particular humanoid forms are a cartoon duck and an innocent-looking little girl – neither of which are forms that we’d ordinarily sexualize. So it’s an incongruous image. Incongruity provokes laughter. Hence, this thread, and the tee-hees therein.
The only way I remember is supine on your spine.
This was my face seeing that picture :eek: except of course not blue.
If I do that, I start thinking of backs. “Soupine” is the way you want to be to hold a bowl of soup.
It’s also the way your hands are when holding a bowl of soup - and supinate and pronate in hands and feet are always tricky. If you had to hold a bowl of soup with your feet, you’d try to do it by turning the inner sides up and bending your knees out to the side - supinating your feet.
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Oh my. Apparently I’ve been misled about the penis thing (and no, it wouldn’t be the first time :))