Coomer artists, please get to work

  • 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]@lemmygrad.ml
      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]@lemmygrad.ml
          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]@lemmygrad.ml
              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.

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

                I don’t understand why you think it’s a bad faith interpretation. I guess I don’t understand what your basis is for calling OP sexualized, as you haven’t explained what elements you find sexual. All I saw was where you contrasted the two pictures, which left me to guess which differences you found significant. I just figured you were going off vibes. Also some of the women in OP are wearing less.

                • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’m calling it a bad faith interpretation because I haven’t said a single thing about their clothing. Why did you think I was talking about clothing “ankles, lol” when I didn’t mention it at all?

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

                    Because you didn’t tell me what you were talking about! So I’m left to guess, and apparently if I guess wrong it’s “bad faith.”

                    Why don’t you just tell me what you’re talking about instead?