HOME | DD
Ehryel — Breakfast Time
Published: 2010-08-24 04:33:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 366031; Favourites: 4098; Downloads: 1318
Redirect to original
Description
I think I'm starting to get the hang of this comic thing.Underwear as morning attire?
Underwear as morning attire.
Meg, Melody, Ariel © Disney
Comic © *X-Arielle
Related content
Comments: 398
Melody is a 12 year old child. Why is she drawn her in a highly revealing outfit and in her underwear? No one goes to the family table and eats in their underwear. Pajamas make sense, but this is sexualizing a minor.
Ariel and Meg are adults, so I'm not bothered but a 12 year old child? The hell is wrong with you?
disneyprincess.fandom.com/wiki…
👍: 3 ⏩: 3
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I'm going to put this here, because everyone is not understanding why this post is raising red flags:
Melody is a 12-13 year old child, when you're at this age, your body is in that awkward phase before
puberty hits, where your body is lanky, you're going through growth spurts, so you're going to shoot up
in height but your curves don't come in until later. (yes even if you're bigger it's the same, I was a chunky
kid and even then my legs when I sat down were more square than curved, like two logs)
The other biggest factor, because there are people who draw all characters stylized,
is from going to their gallery and observing the style in all the characters. We're
not looking at the fact that they're all sexualized, we are literally looking at the style
and quality. Notice how they can draw both cartoon and realisim? Some of the
details are realistic, while others lean more towards cartoons.
Now, this is where this is raising red flags for me. If someone with that skill level can
draw such intricate, detailed drawings and detailed outfits, then why did they
give a child curvy, adult legs that match Meg and Ariel's, as well as swap out her
long legged pants/underwear for something so revealing? They clearly are more than capable
of drawing Melody's actual pants, since she's drawn in her top from the film.
Now, if this person had drawn Melody in actual pajamas or another outfit, like say a tank top
and shorts, that is absolute fine, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but all of these factors
together is what concerns me. Not to mention, every single thing in their gallery is sexualized.
I get drawing sexual content for views and commissions, even though it's against policy, if they
are grown adults I have no issue with it.
The fact that Melody is even in the comic, with this tone is a bit odd. Really think about it for a second,
If you had over a girlfriend, you wouldn't want them walking in front of your kid like that, you'd chuck
on a night gown or something. I know you think I'm a troll, and frankly I don't really care, I have an insane
amount of work to do, but one thing I absolutely can not stand is kids being sexualized in any way, shape
or form. If it's accidental, you point it out, it gets fixed, move on.
The fact that so many people here are trying to justify a little kid being in this situation, cartoon
or not, is extremely alarming. Some have thought she's in a bathing/swim suit, or don't even know how young
Melody is. Again, if there wasn't a child in this, I wouldn't give a shit, to be frank. I would think this is cute and
playful (Meg is 35-45 last I checked, and Ariel in the second movie was 18-22 at the start, so I'm guessing
she had Melody when she was 18-20, making her 35-36 here)
Seriously, google The Little Mermaid 2 and look at the cover art. Why was her underwear there changed
for something that is far more revealing, as well as giving her adult curves?
👍: 4 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You do realise there are female pedophiles too? That all pedophiles
aren't just men.
Also you really need to read down the comment chain, I've already
explained several times over what the issue here is.
👍: 3 ⏩: 0
👍: 4 ⏩: 1
Trust me, I absolutely wish this was innocent however there's
far too many factors that pile in together to raise a lot of red
flags. Again, if you scroll through replies you can see the
issues I have, but here's a quick summary:
1. They said her underwear is what she wears as pajamas, but due
to the time period, as well as the film, we know those long pants
on the cover, is her in her underwear. Notice how she has the same
top from the film, and in the commentary it says it's underwear, yet
it's been edited to something Melody doesn't wear?
2. I remember what my body was like when I was 12-13 and it was
NOT curvy like that. Anatomy girls go lanky before curves come in
much later (maybe 15-16ish) and in art I had to study anatomy to
be able to draw ages correctly, because I frankly sucked at it.
3. It's not their style, they intentionally gave this 12/13 year old
child curvy legs and skimpy underwear. Go to their gallery and look
at the detail and quality. They can draw extremely detailed and
complex outfits, but baggy pants for some reason they can't?
4. Looking at their gallery, it's filled with fetishes and sexual content.
If it's adults, I frankly don't give a shit, but considering they're trying
to get attention, possibly for commissions, I have little doubt that
they chose to draw this 12/13 year old child in skimpy underwear, solely
for attention and to draw in sexual commissions.
Now some people may not know the character, or her age (hell I only know
because I loved the film as a kid) but all of these factors combined is the
issue. That this 12 year old kid was intentionally drawn in such a way to
gather commissions.
You do a quick Google search, you'll see the cover art, Google the character,
you'll see she's 12.
And I'm gonna add this last one, since everyone loves to throw accusations:
I don't give a shit about Ariel and Meg being a couple. That does not bother me.
They're close in age, they're both consenting adults. They know their body and
they know themselves, they know what is okay and what isn't.
The problem is this child being exploited and put into a scenario like this, solely
for attention. She's 12 and neither myself, or anyone else I knew at that age
would wear that to breakfast, or parents would not let their partner walk around
their kids like that.
This is the summary, I recommend reading the chain if you want to know the
rest of the issues in more depth.
👍: 2 ⏩: 0
I honestly just thought they were all wearing bathing suits?
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
No, these are singlets/tank tops and underwear. Another factor
is that they gave Melody (a 12 year old) curvy legs when kids that
Age have straight legs.
Curvy legs + underwear and little clothing, as well as the sexual
tone, all rings highly inappropriate. On top of that, no 12 year old
child eats breakfast in their underwear around their family like that.
(that and DA has a notorious pedophilia problem as well)
Also have a look at the rest of their gallery, it all contains content
that sexualizes individuals (mostly women and in this case children)
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Oh jeez, sure enough! I had no idea, I just came across this as I was looking for Little Mermaid art. That's a bit unnerving. :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Unfortunately compared to some stuff on DA this is calm (some users straight up draw
child assault and sexualisation. Even though this isn't as outright as the other content that
I've seen, it's still absolutely NOT acceptable and severely harmful, whether the user who
drew and uploaded this is aware or not, this actively puts kids in danger.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
This doesn't put any child in danger, it is a drawing. Calm your tits.
👍: 2 ⏩: 1
It in fact does, it also makes whoever is getting 'pleasure' out of it even worse.
The best way to describe this is like trying to cheat a diet because you hate
veggies. You start out with looking at photos of pudding each and every day, since
it's not actual pudding, so what's the harm, right?
So you keep doing it, because you really want it but know that you shouldn't, because
it's not healthy. But you still want it so bad and keep looking at pictures, then you move
onto photos, because you want more detail from that pudding. You keep doing this and
keep engaging in it, until you can't get it off of your mind.
One day, you can't take it, you want that pudding, even if it's just a small piece.
You tell yourself, "I'll have a little bit of pudding each day, just a little
to satisfy my urge." However you're circling the drain, going around and around, because
you initially told yourself that what you were doing was good, when you knew it wasn't.
This can be applied here, because again, the person who drew this actively chose to
draw a 12 year old child in her underwear, they actively chose to draw an older woman
approaching a 12 year old child in underwear with an obvious intention. If it was a swim
suit and they just got out of a pool and had a towel, then it would make sense with
context and a kid would have a towel around themselves to keep warm and dry off.
Have a look at this scene, really look at it. She's eating cereal at a table, her mother Ariel
and Meg are walking out, all in underwear, indicating this is in the morning, implying that
Melody slept in her underwear. Again, in context, no kid goes to have breakfast around their
family in their underwear and no 12 year old has curvy legs like that either.
Again I would pass it off, but have a look at the other drawings in this person's gallery,
have a look at the on-going theme throughout. A majority of it is sexual, it's fetish. Now
look at this scene again with all this in mind.
Now that we know the person who drew this draws a lot of sexual content, let's think,
this is a 12 year old girl, an underage minor globally. A person who draws a lot of women
and young-looking adults, actively chose to draw a 12 year old child like this. They're
putting a 12 year old girl in the same context as the other sexual content.
Really think on it, why would someone draw a child in an inappropriate scenario like this?
Why would they think of a 12 year old child like this? This does not happen, it's a matter
of your brain going: That is a child. You are identifying this child in a sexual scenario,
which can and does hurt real kids, because how do you think Pedophiles start? They started
by drawings, either by drawing it themselves or looking for content like this, to 'engage' with.
Remember how I said earlier about the pudding? Apply that to here with this drawing and real
kids. A lot of people don't think further enough ahead for the consequences or realise how
dangerous this is to draw kids like this.
👍: 2 ⏩: 2
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If you worked in the DAPF *(DeviantArt Police Force)* as long
as I did, you start to see early signs before a user turns into a
predator, or it draws more predators. That, and kids shouldn't
be drawn like this in the first place.
You're also aware that DeviantArt has a *severe* pedophilia
problem? I'd rather call attention to it, before it has a chance to
develop into something dangerous, and you can label me and call
me names all you like, I don't give a crap but I'd rather that then
a kid become targeted because of this.
If you don't believe me, then have a good look on this website,
admin actively ignore reports of pedophilia, whether it's cartoon
or anatomically correct.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
i still dress like that around the house. Im all for shitting on ppl drawing minors in a sexualized manner...but this isn't it. This is not it.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
So you're telling me you wear crop top singlet and underwear,
sitting in front of your family when people are over? Also that
isn't my only problem with this image. Melody's a 12 year old
kid, and kids do not have curvy legs like that.
But the real reason why I know this is intentionally drawn
in a sexual manner is due to the user themselves. Have a
look at their gallery. Every single drawing is fetish or sexualized,
even with other very young looking characters, it's all drawn in
ways that you would never look t and go, "Yeah alright, this is PG."
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I think meg is suppose to represent ariel's wife..so her mom. which yes I'm very comfortable with. Hell, I can chill in my underwear around my friends who are all girls.
And I guess she has curvy legs?? Shes sitting in a very non sexual manner and just eating food...
I know there was questionable content in the very past but the artist has grown. Mostly she draws herself w women, or obsessed over older women with women in the same age (look at her OUAT art..which are just about lesbians in love and being a bit sexy). She just loves women her age, maybe even older now lmao. Anyways, you're fighting something that was a mistake and happened YEARS ago. I get your freaked reaction but this isn't it
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The other thing too:
There's a few hints about this just giving off red flags. I mean Meg and Ariel are adults, they're consenting and
knowing what they're doing, but a 12 year old kid? That's just wrong. I caught glimpses of another comic strip on
Pinterest and thought it was something funny, however seeing it leads back to this...I'm disappointed that the drawer
feels the need to pull a kid into an inappropriate situation, intentional or not.
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
I never said it's from how she's sitting,you can sit almost anyway
you like and it won't change your leg shape that much (I know
because I've had to study anatomy to improve my art for a major
project)
When you're round about that age, you start to get lanky and I get
when people struggle to draw ages properly, however seeing the level
of detail in their other pieces, it's hard to think that they'd skip out here,
especially since the detail with Meg and Ariel are so accurate.
I really want to believe that, however my hobby used to be running a
community group (that went by the DeviantArt Police Force, like a neighbourhood
watch) and after doing that for so long, you tend to pick up on the warning
signs. Swimmers is one thing, but a combo of the underwear and curvy legs that
kids just don't have? I'm not really buying it.
And it's not like chubby style either, like the artwork for Lilo and Stitch, for having that
baby fat or representing the artwork with your own style, but when I was a kid, I never
wore crop tops that showed my belly and underwear sitting at the table.
My siblings never did it, when I went to sleepovers, no one ever did it, and I'm from Australia,
it's like an oven here in summer, so trust me, there's no real situation that can really point this out as okay.
Not to mention, whether Ariel and Meg are a thing or not, I don't see any family walking around nearly
butt-naked around each other. Not to mention Ariel has the longest singlet, but the 12 year old child
and (I honestly have no idea how old Meg is) have ridiculously tiny crop-tops, just isn't sitting right with me.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Why does everyone compare homophobia to pedophilia? Seriously,
I've said it before and I will say it a gain, I have absolutely *nothing*
against homosexuality *(hell I'm demisexual myself)* but Ariel and
Meg are two consenting adults, there's no problem there. They know
themselves, they know their bodies, they know what is okay and what
isn't.
We know that Melody is 12-13, as you yourself said, but guess what? That's
when you're in that awkward phase of having a childish face, but a thin, stretched
out body *(and again, as a kid, I was chunky, when I sat down it looked wasn't
curved but more square-like if that makes sense)*
The other biggest factor, because there are people who draw all characters stylized,
is from going to their gallery and observing the style in all the characters. We're
not looking at the fact that they're all sexualized, we are literally looking at the style
and quality. Notice how they can draw both cartoon and realisim? Some of the
details are realistic, while others lean more towards cartoons.
Now, this is where this is raising red flags for me. If someone with that skill level can
draw such intricate, detailed drawings and detailed outfits, then why did they
give a child curvy, adult legs that match Meg and Ariel's, as well as swap out her
long-pants underwear for something so revealing? They clearly are more than capable
of drawing Melody's actual pants, since she's drawn in her top from the film.
Now, as a kid, I was really big, I wasn't skinny but even then, when I
sat down, I didn't have curvy fat, none of my friends did. No one I know
ate in their underwear when people are over.
The reason why I know this is underwear, is because I remember the movie
and the time period it took place in. Hell, it was one of my favourites as a
kid. That, as well as admiring films like Corpse Bride, Edward Scissor hands,
and frequently looking up old victorian styles for character references, I
know vintage-style underwear when I see it.
Now my biggest problem here, that absolutely *everyone* is missing, is
the fact that, yes do have a phase where we're skinny and dangly before it
puberty fully takes place. As I said multiple times, I HAD to study anatomy
for a project, because I absolutely sucked at drawing different ages on
characters. You look at the old stuff in my gallery, you can see that I
absolutely sucked at drawing ages properly, and for my big indie project, I
had to improve on this skill to create a wide variety of characters.
Now, if this person had drawn Melody in a actual pajamas or another outfit, like say a tank top
and shorts, that is absolute fine, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but all of these factors
together is what concerns me. Not to mention, every single thing in their gallery is sexulized.
I get drawing sexual content for views and commissions, even though it's against policy, if they
are grown adults I have no issue with it.
The fact that Melody is even in the comic, with this tone is a bit odd. Really think about it for a second,
If you had over a girlfriend, you wouldn't want them walking in front of your kid like that, you'd chuck
on a night gown or something. I know you think I'm a troll, and frankly I don't give a shit, but one thing
I absolutely can not stand is kids being sexulized in any way, shape or form. If it's accidental, you point it out,
it gets fixed, move on.
The fact that so many people here are trying to justify a little kid being in this situation, cartoon
or not, is extremely alarming. Some have thought she's in a bathing/swim suit, or don't even know how young
Melody is. Again, if there wasn't a child in this, I wouldn't give a shit, to be frank. I would think this is cute and
playful (Meg is 35-45 last I checked, and Ariel in the second movie was 18-22, so I'm guessing she had Melody when
she was 18-20, making her 35-36 here)
Seriously, google the little mermaid two and look at the cover art. Why was her underwear there changed
for something that is far more revealing, as well as giving her adult curves?
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
i think meg has been hanging around with hades for too long (x.x)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It looks like Meg has serpent's eyes in the first panel. They look cool!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
he is out of town for a few days.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
maybe Eric and Ariel got married had the baby divorced and then Ariel and Meg got together and how melody is still here
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
could have just donated his sperm to make a baby for them.
happens all the time, that's why sperm banks exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What exactly was Meg going to do to Meldoy? XD Anyway, this is hilarious. Do more!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
que paso con el principe eric, ariel lo mando de paseo?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Melody's face! and i love how Ariel's bored "no" look.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Best! That last panel again! Gotta love that mischievous side to Meg!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People just don't use hair often enough in cartoons to stop people. Seriously. All that hair in all these conflicts and no one uses.
Love that cute cereal-eating smile.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>