Coomer artists, please get to work
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.
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.
Women’s bodies aren’t sexual if that’s what you mean. You have some learning to do.
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 mean WE can’t draw, I hope the artist draws the other countries now though. She’s brazillian
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!
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.
ask both cis and trans women in real life, but don’t ask hexbear (good question though)
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.
