Coomer artists, please get to work

        • MaoTheLawn [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
          22·
          1 year ago

          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?

          • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.netEnglish
            16·
            1 year ago

            was that a struggle session or what? 4 months later we still got some coals glowing! good times meow-hug

            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

            • MaoTheLawn [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
              8·
              1 year ago

              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.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        20·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • VOLCEL_POLICE [it/its]@hexbear.netBEnglish
      34·
      1 year ago

      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.

      volcel-police

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    34·
    1 year ago

    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.

        • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          16·
          1 year ago

          We’ve already had it once before when brics posting was last in. It was stupid, women aren’t inherently sexual

          • Abraxiel@hexbear.netEnglish
            141·
            1 year ago

            Right. These women are being portrayed in an intentionally sexualized manner though. It’s not extreme, but they’re attractive, have flushed faces, and are posed suggestively on purpose.

            But like, big deal? People are going to draw people looking hot, as they have for thousands of years.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
              15·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • Abraxiel@hexbear.netEnglish
                12·
                1 year ago

                The easiest to break down is probably Russia.

                She is posed coyly, regarding the viewer without facing them directly. This may be in part because it’s a reliable head shape to draw, (as we see it repeated in the rest of the figures,) but it’s also definitely within typical body language for flirtation. There is within the piece a general attitude of playful contempt toward the viewer. The composition places the figures to look down at the viewer, India even bends to look at us at our level with a scolding finger, juxtaposed with a smile and heavy-lidded eyes. This is intended to make the figures more desirable, to create in the viewer the feeling of wanting their approval. It’s a common enough sexual dynamic that I hope I don’t have to explain further.

                The placement of Russia’s right arm beneath her bust both creates a barrier between the viewer and the figure and, along with her other arm, frames her breasts, which are pushed up. Both the shading (also note the little line between the breasts) and the distortion of the lettering on the shirt serve to highlight the shape. Similarly the shadows on her skirt are applied such that they mirror the pubic region and provide several lines for the eye to follow there. The bite out of this shape even seems to suggest a pubic mound. Around the edges, too we see come into shape the lighter region of the skirt as suggestive of the legs and abdomen beneath it.

                You can take a lot of this stuff independently and explain it as something else, but we have to understand that this is being drawn by a person who communicates in this medium either professionally or as a serious hobby. Artists spend a lot of time making these; the composition, poses, etc. are considered and intended for effect. The artist of this piece intended for it to be somewhat erotic and applied a number of techniques in pursuit of that.

                • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  5·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

    • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      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.