We need to expand the BRICS Chicks image now that new countries are joining
Coomer artists, please get to work
Coomer artists, please get to work
oh that poster was hilarious! also all the yelling about how the art was 'horny' or 'suggestive'
I mean, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of ass struggles.
That was probably me. I realise that I overreacted or hyperbolised it, and that some of my sentiment was probably just a wider anti-anime sentiment. I came down too heavy on one side and had a puritanical take.
However, looking at the images once more, and some of the images posted in this thread (by the same artist) and people's reactions to them - is it really that puritanical to suggest that the artist intended them to be sexually attractive?
was that a struggle session or what? 4 months later we still got some coals glowing! good times
but like nobody disagreed with that, just the idea it deserved to be called 'horny' and the idea similar content shouldn't be allowed. which might not have been your actual suggestion, but on a forum with lots of rules about horny-posting & nsfw stuff applying a label like 'horny' will get people defensive if it's something they consider acceptable. and why it got so passionate is i think a lot of people would see themselves in the [extremely broad] context of looking good + posing, so saying/implying that wouldn't fly here (though no-one should post personal photos here) provokes a hard reaction.
also no one disagrees that a reddit-tier comment ad-libbing a sexual fantasy about some person depicted on a post would be unacceptable either, the disagreement there was blaming that on the OP---because gross stuff like that can happen in a perfectly sanitized post about something a nasty person finds hot
Yeah, that's true. I would agree that calling to ban it was what made it such an incendiary issue.
I see what you mean on the second part, but to anyone who feels that way, I'll clarify that in my opinion, by nature of being drawn from imagination means there's an added implication of a voyeuristic relationship to the viewer, that they've been created for the viewer? I don't know, that wording sounds too harsh for what I mean. I think if the image was of real people it wouldn't have the same implications. It would just be humans posing for a fun picture. They'd look and feel human rather than as a stylised and accentuated version of a human created for consumption.
Consumption by backwater internet forums too, I'd imagine. That has its own set of implications, which relate more to your last point about how it's not really the artists fault. Again, I mostly agree, but the artists general output of content does cater to a certain audience.
i just dont like it because the drawings are shitty and getting excited over brics in this way is weird and feels very white
i was born in the wrong decade, i absolutely would have been besties with marx and engels gggg
Oh my god, you still remember that? yes and that illustration is supposed to be a pornographic image, don't forget it as well.
I always take the bait. I don't want to relitigate this, but just so my stance is clear, that came from me speaking carelessly and the radlib pricks here exaggerating my claim. Here is the claim, which I have no interest in persuading anyone on, but just so you can make fun of me accurately (by means other than replying to this comment).
If you are doing personification of countries, you generally are either using common features or those of the leaders of the country. The most common hair color in Russia is brown (it's blonde in a handful of other countries, like Finland). To make your waifu blonde (with blue eyes and white skin, though those features are appropriate) in contradiction to the general logic of the representation for seemingly no reason other than aesthetic preference is an artifact of the racial ideology privileging "Aryans". I have no stance on the author's personal politics and frankly don't care.
Elsewhere a user shared her portrait of Western Bloc states and having the US be blonde makes sense there to represent a white supremacist state that is obsessed with blondes and has young white women dying their hair blonde left and right.
If a Finland waifu was included, it would make the most sense for her to be blonde, but having Russia be blonde is like having China be Tibetan. China does have Tibetans, but they are clearly not the majority politically or by population.
Also obviously the work is objectifying and gross and laundering that through "oh, the artist is lesbian, are you attacking a lesbian's sexual expression?" is deeply reactionary radlib bullshit to score points and not question your assumptions about media. Since radlibs can do nothing but identity-based laundering of their personal preferences, I will mention that one of my best friends is a lesbian and she also thinks that this is objectifying and gross. She says this because it obviously is and anyone denying it is engaged in motivated reasoning to a pathetic degree.
None of this is to persuade you (the "you" used here was general, not specifically you, bagend). If you disagree with any of what I wrote, then that thing I wrote is wrong. If someone is curious about media criticism I can explain more, but I mostly just hate myself being made fun of for things that don't represent my stance. Fire away, just elsewhere in the thread and without tagging me so I'm not here all day.
I hope not. I'll go block the radlib who is the biggest problem in that respect, now that you mention it. There is nothing to be gained from interacting with that user's bullshit if said bullshit does end up getting turned on me again.
I'm trying to find it again but all I'm getting are endless parody posts lol
https://hexbear.net/post/263190
Not quite the original thread, but it's the post that went up to say that the original post was in poor taste, which is the mark of any good struggle session anyway.
It can be hard to find stuff around here because The Creator likes to do a lot of deleting.
I'm sad I dismissed this as a weird objectifying post by some weeb and am sad I missed out on the fun.
No they aren't. Do you really think something with marinara for blood could exist?
If I comment my thoughts on what I want the German girl to do to me I would instantly get banned from this site by the
::: spoiler Spoiler Also for the record I didn't make the incredibly obvious "she always stays on top" joke I could of made because I have some small measure of personal restraint
tbh this feels like another flavor of hetalia/countryballs. taking the stereotypical characteristics of a country and personifying them
Countries being personified as women goes back to at least ancient Rome.
Most countries do it. I've always thought it's kinda weird and horny though.
the reason why this sort of shit is so popular is because nation-states have some level of "personhood", so to speak. someone here posted an essay about how arguably nation-states are a type of consciousness of sorts, but for my life i can't find it
this thread show what happens when we try to dial back on use of the volcel police
sorry but...
::: spoiler spoiler YOU'RE ALL UNDER ARREST
:::
The VOLCEL POLICE are on the scene! PLEASE KEEP YOUR VITAL ESSENCES TO YOURSELVES AT ALL TIMES.
نحن شرطة VolCel.بناءا على تعليمات الهيئة لترويج لألعاب الفيديو و النهي عن الجنس نرجوا الإبتعاد عن أي أفكار جنسية و الحفاظ على حيواناتكم المنويَّة حتى يوم الحساب. اتقوا الله، إنك لا تراه لكنه يراك.
the nice, kind and cooperative hexbears are gone. and WE'RE BACK
the needlessly aggressive and puritanical people unaccountably argumentative about cartoon illustrations
i deliberately entered a thread full of things i do not like, and now i am upset. how could this have happened?
Deviant art aesthetic that you can place when you've consumed a lot of it. For me it's defined by it's reliance on artistic crutches for lack of ability and imagination. Less "my style" from informed study and more this is all I know how to do well. For example, look at the mouths, the same angle on everyone of faces and the hiding of hands so they don't have to draw them. It's something I personally dislike immensely so this part is just me.
I guess I don't see the hand complaint here, looks like they're dynamic enough when the pose calls for it. I'm just apprehensive about reducing art in a vacuum, especially when it's more than serviceable. It seems like this artist is problematic for other reasons, so stigma aside I'd rather appreciate it for being fun after some stereotypes are addressed.
Again, I personally don't like it, that's just me. But I also find the fetishization and nerdiness of it off putting
I still don't get why the hornyposters and the puritans alike get so weird about this. Yeah they're attractive but there's nothing remotely sexual about them, it's perfectly SFW. Everybody needs to chill imo.
if that becomes an actual struggle session, i'm finding the server room and running through it with a big magnet
We've already had it once before when brics posting was last in. It was stupid, women aren't inherently sexual
I guess I just don't see how they're sexualised in this image then. Like they're hot yeah, but that's not inherently sexual either. The flushed faces I guess, but I just sort of assumed it was the authors style.
What's suggestive about their poses?
I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me, thank you.
However I disagree with your statement. It's clear you know a lot more about the technical drawings of art, posings and lighting and so forth, so for this reason I won't go more into it, except to say that to me I see women being depicted. Saying Russia is posed coyly strikes me as you reading something into the picture that isn't made present by the creator. The fact that her arm makes her breast visible is just a result of her having big breasts - having big breasts isn't sexual of itself. The lettering being distorted does highlight that she has big breasts, but again big breasts aren't sexual. The shadows on her skirt highlight that she has some big ass thighs and a fat ass, which also isn't sexual in and of itself. Her clothes highlight the shape of her body, which is a conventionally attractive body, but that doesn't make it sexual.
I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I am trying to explain how - to me - it strikes me as you saying "attractive people are sexual". While I understand that there is an extra layer here, since someone decides to draw them a certain way, I don't see anything in their framing making them explicitly sexualised.
I know plenty of people with fat sses that sometimea wear a tight-fitting skirt, which the does highlight their pubic region at times as well. That's not sexualised.
Contrast it with this art comrade. It's soviet art depicting attractive women of many races in a neutral context, so it's a great contrast compared to the sexualized BRICS image.
I'm okay with comrades having sexualized media as a treat, but we must take care to see it for what it is.
The BRICS image is not "sexualized." There is not a single thing sexual about it.
All the women in your image are scandolously showing off their ankles, so maybe your image is "sexualized" too.
You know, I suddenly don't mind anymore that libs said I'm a Russia-China shill.
I'm now a proud a Russia-China simp. 🥵
not only is the line blurry, the blur is in the eye of the bee holder. For me, I see a diverse set of comfortably dressed cartoon women. I know people who would find this offensive (alleging sexualization has happened) and I know several guys who have spare removed for random modest shit like this.
not to suggest that there aren't women you can ask on here, just that it's always better to ask these kinds of questions in person, since the internet is full of insincerity, poe's law, and schrodinger's jokes.
Also there's more to this issue than simply standpoint theory, but it is good to start by asking women. But that doesn't mean all women will have a non-reactionary answer to the question. for example, I have met misogynist women in my lifetime, unfortunately.
i think it's mainly about not being a shithead. feeling guilty about being attracted to women isn't helpful to anyone
So, if you see someone you find attractive outside of a sexual context (like in the pic), the first rule is not to jump straight into talking about fucking or cumming.
I feel like a lot of people in here could benefit from this Key & Peele sketch.
Damn girl the way that dres is flowing... Got themmmm titties popping out, is a line that always just gets to me. Those two dudes were hilarious.
It's also fun y to me how the other guy is still catcalling. He's doing the exact same shit as the other dude, just less honest in a way. I'd get pissed about both of them, I don't wanna hear his subpar poetry about my ass.
Well it's of course extra difficult since this is a drawing, so their appearance is a choice made by their creator, but maybe this will help:
Pretty people are attractive. Showing attraction to women could be if you as an artist generally chose to only depict women with features you found attractive. This isn't inherently negative, but it probably has potential to be.
Drawing people in ways that make them attractive to you would not be sexualising them though.
Sexualisation occurs when you present people in a framework that indicates sex. I don't know how to English good, but what I mean is you make them or their actions be about sex or sexual acts in some way.
This can both be done voluntarily and involuntarily. Like taking sexy photos of yourself would be sexualising yourself - you are presenting yourself in a sexualised framework.
As an artist drawing people you could sexualise them by making them do obviously suggestive poses, wear skimpy or no clothing (though nude people aren't inherently sexual either - it's confusing! You can be nude for many reasons, like taking a shower. Likewise revealing clothing isn't inherently sexual either. The lines get blurred when it is a drawing, because a creator might have decided to dress a character provocatively to sexualise them, despite the character itself not sexualising itself.) You could also place them in a sexual environment - like a sex dungeon.
You could also make them do sexual acts.
An involuntary example could be one of a person exercising by doing squats and you then going "I wouldn't mind standing behind her right now" or saying "oh yeah when they wear that outfit it's because they want to fuck" or "that outfit is fucking sexy. It leaves nothing up to the imagination, I can see her nipples" or "yeah she's working out so her man can get a real ass to grab.".
You are in a way reframing the world to be a sexual one - the person exercising was already wearing tight-fitting clothes, but they weren't doing it for a sexual reason. The person was doing a movement that could be suggestive, but they weren't being suggestive - that was just you deciding it was suggestive despite another framework being present. The person was doing an exercise that would make them more conventionally attractive, but they weren't in the moment doing this for any sexual reason, you decided they were exercising in order to be more pleasant to the eye of their sexual partner.
When there's talk of sexualising the women in this thread, it is because the women aren't doing anything sexual. They are attractive, but there is nothing inherently sexual about them or their actions. They aren't being suggestive, and they aren't presented how a creator would typically present a character they would want to sexualise - Ie. By clothing or environment or actions being sexual. People get confused though, because all of the characters are conventionally attractive, which is a way some creators sexualise their characters (ie all attractive characters are inherently sexual in that creators work. This is however very rarely if ever anything anybody but pornographic and erotic creators do.).
Others will say that they are posed suggestively, or that they are presented in a sexual manner. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, maybes there's no clear answer, maybe there is, it's not something I can definitely say.
I hope this helps!