some_stars invokes rule 34

[rydra_wong]

--there was a whole explanatory self-disclaimery paragraph here that I deleted, because it was ridiculous, but it did contain the phrase "women being forced into pastry," which I wanted to preserve. Primarily because it sounds so much like a bizarre porn subgenre that I've convinced myself a noncon-female-pastry-envelopment video trading community really does exist somewhere on the internet. Possibly thought into being by me, just now.

Context has been led astray by an article on pastry chefs.

Comments are also worth reading:



resonant:

Now, on the other hand, the consensual empanada-ing of women is something I can see enjoying. Imagine, say, Kate Winslet sighing happily as she's lovingly wrapped in puff pastry and dusted with powdered sugar.

some_stars:

I can definitely imagine an immersion in pastry dough being marketed as a spa treatment. The youthening effects of gluten proteins on collagen! Or something! The skin-softening butters! (Well, butter, anyway.) The gentle-but-effective exfoliation of the baking powder!

some_stars:

Now I feel kind of bad for calling it bizarre, because the more I think about it the more clearly it seems to be a slight variation on all kinds of fetishes I totally understand. Really, in a way, there's a noncon-female-pastry-envelopment fetishist in all of us, you know?

Comments

Re: Yes, I realize this is six years after the fact...

[rydra_wong]

I delight in belated comments, and thank you for this excellent contribution!

Marston's id-vortex (oddball as it is) has always seemed so much more benign than those of many comics creators who are also clearly writing their own fetish material.

I mean, obviously it'd be nice if people could write about female superheroes not as fetish material, but given the choice ...