Coomer artists, please get to work

      • Trudge [Comrade]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another poster already made an extensive comment about exactly how it is sexualized.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, and they’re wrong. India’s pose is no more sexualized than the women in your image showing their ankles, it’s nonsense. I could point to literally any drawing of a human being and find something “sexualized” about it. I see nothing in OP that is actually evocative of sex.

          • Trudge [Comrade]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You purposefully mischaracterize what I’m saying by arguing “ankles, lol” because you don’t actually even believe in what you are saying

              • Trudge [Comrade]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                By flanderizing my statement as if I was talking about the clothing. Hence, ankles, lol. Explain what you meant by that then.

                • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I was extending your argument to its natural conclusion. If you can point to some random element in OP like India raising a finger and say that that’s somehow sexual, the I can do the same and point to revealing ankles as sexual. I’m not mischaracterizing your position, I’m just demonstrating why I disagree with it.

                  • Trudge [Comrade]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I was extending your argument to its natural conclusion

                    There isn’t significantly less clothing in OP’s art compared to the one I presented. Explain how it is not a bad faith interpretation.