HOME | DD

Googlypuffers In reply to Kyo-the-Edgelord [2017-11-01 23:26:17 +0000 UTC]

... its a reference

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kyo-the-Edgelord In reply to Googlypuffers [2017-11-02 00:34:23 +0000 UTC]

What's a reference, exactly? XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Googlypuffers In reply to Kyo-the-Edgelord [2017-11-02 21:20:50 +0000 UTC]

it's a picture that you use for anatomy. These are naked because it helps you figure out proportions and positions. It's not to trace, but to use as a reference for drawing. it's like putting an object in front of you and drawing it. That object is a reference

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kyo-the-Edgelord In reply to Googlypuffers [2017-11-02 21:49:18 +0000 UTC]

Oh yeah, duh. XD


But why is the mouth censored?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Googlypuffers In reply to Kyo-the-Edgelord [2017-11-02 22:02:59 +0000 UTC]

stylistic choice

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Kyo-the-Edgelord In reply to Googlypuffers [2017-11-02 23:05:29 +0000 UTC]

....'k.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mortalshinobi In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-02 17:33:43 +0000 UTC]

I was going to keep quiet, but honestly allowing this to go unchallenged is what leads to more of it popping up everywhere. No, they do not need to censor this on some perceived belief of sexualization or hebophilia. the first pose is literally the most common witch pose in existence, only difference is she's attractive where normally the witch in question is a hag of some sort. that is it. if you believe it is sexualized it speaks more of yourself than others. as long as the person in question if following site guidelines they need not censor themselves for your sensibilities or your perceived sensibilities of others.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to mortalshinobi [2017-11-07 11:56:30 +0000 UTC]

Let me start with a few questions, but I want you to take these as academic - there's no accusations here or blame-throwing, because I think we can agree that this art is too damned good for that. So, just go with these hypothetically.

1) What's 'attractive'? Is it that she's thin - too thin and maybe unhealthy in body shape around the abdomen? Or is it more that she's attractive because she's arching her back, and sticking out her chest, in a sexually inviting way?

Knowing which is really useful, because it's not just simple as 'she's attractive'. Now if her spine was straight like you'd expect for someone actually maintaining balance on a broomstick (question: why pose any other way? What is the motive to *not* pose as you would, were you doing the thing it looks like you're doing?), would she still be attractive? Maybe so. Would she still be attractive if she were a little bigger in build, or at least had the tummy bump that is natural for women above the age of 16? More than likely...

My point here being that you (I hope) are an adult, so actually you're able to assess someone's attractiveness without need for posing, or unnatural body shaping - you see through those things, or you should be able to. Nevertheless, without posing, without it looking like someone is *trying* to be attractive to you, you'd also have (as an adult, or you should) in place, a 'check' for that. In other words, you know 'attractiveness' isn't part of the ball game unless *s/he* says it is, by their posing, facial expressions, maybe clothing and body-shape (which is influenced also by pose) combined.

That's kinda my point about sexualisation. It's not censoring. Being nude makes no difference. These aren't things that would be on the site guidelines, because this is somewhat advanced an understanding of the world than most people have as yet. Also I wouldn't *dream* of reporting this artist. Pornographic material also isn't the problem. As noted before, it's context.

2) So, why pose someone any other way than what suits the context of what they're doing? Why make their bodies look anything other than human..? Unless you're *trying* to make them look attractive or not human.

My question is why is 'attractive' as a feature, important here? Is it important? Should it be default to all artwork? Just portrayals of woman? [It is rather normalised] OR Should it *not* be default?

Obviously under certain contexts sexualisation would make perfect sense! Same goes for 'not human' although it's worth noting that there's an alignment of certain 'not human' traits that fall into the conversation of 'body images' and the rather abusive relationship that many people have with them, in part as a result (science is showing) of constant social conditioning not least through visual media, of which artwork of all forms forms a part through exhibition and applications.

If this doesn't make sense to you, I apologise and I'll just leave it at that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mortalshinobi In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-07 17:47:25 +0000 UTC]

I actually see women of that shape all the time who aren't unhealthy though it's often commented they could put on some weight. in answer, it'd be... both. both the thinness and arching and i'll give a point on the "need".  because it is art and attractive sells. if it is not attractive it does not sell. here i'll point to a difference of idea - take a tiger and a wild boar. both are beautiful animals in their own right, but which one is going to sell more art? it's the tiger because more people like tigers and felines, the beauty they encompass and the power. the boar has its own beauty but against the tiger it is not nearly going to do so well popularity wise.  the same goes for body types vs unattractive or regular. now don't get me wrong, i actually moved to manga myself because i got sick of the god type characters and manga kinda proves a guy doesn't need to be on steroids to be popular and a woman needn't a huge chest to do so, but they need character. check out saber and shirou for that in fate stay night. however; even then both characters are attractive if not in the "olympian" level as they are in the states. why? because it sells and in art that's what you want. uglier characters who are more like the boar like hercules berserker and gillies caster can have a good role in such stories but you're never going to see a lot of merchandise of them passed around as compared to saber and shirou who are cute.
as for the poses? mm... for my own use even in a sex doujinshi most of these poses are useless and more akin to the flirty and simple hometown archie comics. because they are poses that indicate flirtiness and girlishness, beyond the first pose which I honestly see as the least sexual of the bunch. do they need to be this way? no. does the artist want them this way? seems so. does he/she have responsibility to little children. actually... no. No, they don't. the responsibility of children and what they look at is a concern of the adults of their immediate family, no one else need concern themselves about it despite what gov would like you to think. and the poses sell, which is what you want in art. do i much care for these particular poses? not really. they've done others i actually like and find useful these ones are kinda... not for me because wether action or sex they just don't fit. but other people will like them and that's kinda' the point of them.
as for the "other than human" again it relates to wanting an image that sells and people want images of things superior to them. thus comics and superheroes, hell even romance models. do you think most men and women look like the people on those covers? but that's what sells. and to also keep in mind, likely the artist is still learning and may not be aware certain conditions are off yet that leave the pose otherwordly or maybe they're doing it on purpose. you'd need to know them. I generally don't use such a term myself unless we're referring to harpies or lamias or something like that.
on note, i felt the need to speak about the idea of censoring, because while you actually seem well mannered and reasoning many who do post like this are not, and try to push the idea of banning/reporting and abusing that which they don't like and disagree with. and without being pushed back against then we get people getting angry and trying to ban things that are inconsequential, so that's why i felt the need to speak up here.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to mortalshinobi [2017-11-08 12:50:09 +0000 UTC]

[In advance REALLY sorry this is so long - I'm writing this tired. I won't be upset if you can't get through it all and I hope you can forgive that I wish I could do a better job!]

Yeah... it sucks that 'sex sells'. But the mere fact that it does, kinda underlines my point on its own. It kinda proves that thinking about sex can be as involuntary as wincing at a gruesome moment in a film... if the stimulus is there to make you think about sex.

Although you did note aesthetics, the issue I'm more concerned about is the *sex* aesthetic aspect. Beauty can be toxic (especially if all you see is beauty... it somewhat degrades the real thing when you find it), granted without need for involvement in triggering sexual instincts inappropriately *however*... I think the latter is a lot more harmful.

I am not disputing that there is a difficulty here - artists more than many other professionals, struggle just to make ends meet. Like musicians: you're either Madonna or Michael Jackson or you're that dude who sings in the pub on evenings and weekends and works 2 part time jobs a week just trying to make ends meet. Desperation makes us do many things, and principles are afforded as much as they are devoutly held.

If an artist gets super popular though, maybe that's an opportunity and door opening to *not* just having to do what people *think* they want you to do. After all, although I'm not sure he ever said it, Henry Ford was claimed to have said "If I just gave people what they'd wanted, I'd have simply bred faster horses" [instead of making automobiles an affordable commodity for the masses].

So I do get where you're coming from. That's why I have really tried to be as respectful as I can to the lovely artist here, and make the point of saying I'm only making these particular criticisms to them because they are (in my eyes) a rising star - so maybe one day they might find themselves in a position where they can buck the trend.

Art isn't just about appealing to the masses, it's also about breaking new ground, and about getting messages across. Art is the tool of revolution, it furthers concepts better than the written word, and it is an amazing gift to be able to portray things in your mind, in a picture others can see and interpret for themselves.

BTW, consider the monoculture that narrow perceptions of beauty result in. You cited an example: tiger versus boar... Yet depictions of the tiger have not saved it from extinction...

[although if you want to see something amazing, check out Tiger Beer's attempt to use their brand, plus artists, to further the cause of protecting the beautiful creature their product bases its marketing and sales upon. They made a donation to WWF's efforts in conservation, and offered fans the opportunity to use an app to make artistic selfies/whatever whilst encouraging them to do the same and donate to the cause.]

Previously other cultures held the Boar in such high regard that it is a member of their zodiacs. I was born in the year of the Boar, but where I come from and live, that sounds like something fat, ugly, and gluttonous - at best loveable, at worst... an insult. Even if you use *boar* and not 'pig', that rhymes with 'bore' in my tongue, so... again: bad things associated! This is now the more dominant narrative. I don't think that's a good thing. I'd like to think Tigers AND Boars can be beautiful.

[Different perspective - ever seen the film 'Predator'? I never looked at boars the same way after seeing that, and hearing from my father that actually, boars can be bloody terrifying if you meet them in the wild and they take a disliking to you.]

So... there's what you think everyone else thinks is beautiful, but there's also what you as an artist *make* beautiful. The wonder of art, is that that question is something an artist may have some choice in. What do you *want* to make the dominant narrative of beauty?

Another drinks producer in South America used to market all its products on advertising that involved heavy doses of sexism and sexual objectification of women. For some reason, not so long ago, they decided this was behind the times and they were ashamed of their past tactics and decided to totally *reverse* their marketing efforts. Everyone probably thought that the beginning of the end of that company, but somehow... they're doing better than ever! So... it can be done. You don't *have* to follow all the time, sometimes you can lead.

I appreciate it's not always easy. Sometimes it's too much to ask - and I get that. I don't want to *tell* an artist to do anything, for precisely that reason: you can ruin your life trying to do the right thing. You don't always get to try that more than once - know what I mean? It's OK that you don't therefore try to change the world in every way, every day. I stick my neck out like I've done here, almost every day. SOMETIMES I REGRET THAT. LoL. I'm not normal for my tenacity in this respect, and I respect that everyone has their strengths and weaknesses - this just happens to be one of mine, that's all.

In the offering of what I've shared here, all I ask is that this means those reading are empowered never to use ignorance as a shield or an excuse (because this is too easy to do). I'm just putting it out there in the hopes that - should the opportunity one day arise as and whenever possible and the reader in question considers it worth the risks involved - that they can do something with that knowledge. It's all about opportunity, and seizing it and every little helps. Maybe it's not this piece of artwork, but another one day.

I disagree that children are solely the responsibility of those directly involved in their rearing. I primarily disagree with this because actually, I consider responsibility for what a child looks at to be first and foremost that *child's* responsibility. Owning that - or being taught  how to own that for oneself - is something that I believe everyone however, is responsible for.

I had some involuntary exposure to porn as an infant, but I assure you: it wasn't my family's fault (well on incident was but all the others were not). Most of the time it was because of someone else - an absent minded casting aside of a used magazine on the pavement, or the assertion that a workplace is 'adult' so no child would ever go in there (except the manager's daughter after school because mum was in hospital receiving chemo). Or simply the fact that a man on the bus thought that because I couldn't see what he was gawking at, that when he looked up at me, I wouldn't understand his thoughts (duh - mirror neurons! I felt awfully uncomfortable, even if I didn't understand why until older). Or it was a friend who's cousin's parents had allowed them access to things they shouldn't, and I saw by way of some item being smuggled into the house from *them*, things I wasn't ready to see.

Now... who's responsible there? It rather stopped mattering after the 3rd party involved in the material access. What mattered then was the content of what we were viewing which was... well... much to be desired for setting standards of what women are, what men want, that heterosexual is what we should be, white is better, blond is better, and big breasts are important etc.

Gosh I'm sorry this came out longer than I'd hoped. Sorry about that...

ANYWAY no it's not really censorship that I'm after. Censorship actually doesn't solve much. LoL - children go hunting for what they're not supposed to be getting - right?! I don't know about you, but I ALWAYS wanted icecream, especially if someone told me I wasn't allowed to have any yet! Rather I consider damage mitigation is better when you *assume* children can and will end up seeing adult things.

I also think that if you do that, it not only lessens the damage of premature exposure, but it might even do some actual good. As I mentioned in a different comment, porn *should* be a really good thing. It should offer some really sound advice. The kind of stuff you only learn by seeing real couples, and real relationships (TV is a *substitute*) and how people work well together (not, as soaps and other forms of media today often focus upon: how we do things badly, fuck things up irrepairably, and 'oh well never mind just accept that's life').

Porn shouldn't be "Oh well just accept you have to make a lot of noise/if she doesn't she's not enjoying it" or "Most people like it assways with a large **** and seven different partners in a row" - lol. The predominant narrative of porn should be one of diversity - she likes it this way, he likes it that way, they like it this way, sometime its men, or women, or same sex, or here's someone who's larger, who's smaller, and different skin colours... but the one thing that unifies all of them: they're *really* enjoying this, and there's patterns that can be discerned from that. Here's a sign of real enjoyment, here's another, and another...

Obviously this is for the entertainment side of porn, but arguably there's also the opportunity in dramas to shows well-meaning people handling a situation well, like when someone *isn't* quite into something, or might be in discomfort and so... we learn how to look for signs, and what's important/not important in sex.

I don't know about you, but when I was getting all those hormones telling me I needed to do *something* with my partner that first time, someone had bloody told me all those things. I'd have eaten with less guilt, I'd have known I didn't just have to keep at it, I'd have known rejection is OK, and that likewise it's still OK to say no even when you're a couple, and so on and so forth. So much I had to learn from scratch, and so much I learned *wrong* from porn it's hard to undo.

I uh... hope this explains anyway that 'censorship' isn't quite my motive. I guess it depends on what people mean by that. Do they mean... "Right place, right time, right context"? Or do they mean "Hide it away it's shameful, be afraid of your bodies, breasts scare me because I was never taught self-control"? I totally appreciate that there's an awful lot of the latter. I'm just... not quite in that category - I hope you understand.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mortalshinobi In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-08 18:59:12 +0000 UTC]

mm. i read it all. on the note of porn, actually, at least when i've seen magazines and a good deal of doujin, that is their point. she likes this, he likes this. hell, i got one doujin that was translated where saber was angry at shirou cuz he only lasted three minutes. it was done in the sense of humor but still pointed that character A wants this, character B doesn't understand that, ect. It just depends what you look for and what you find. on the other hand, finding the empty case on the side walk or pictures on someone's screen or a page on side walk... well the screen they probably didn't expect someone to walk in and they do have a right to watch what they want on their own personal computers. as for the side walk thing, i think that has more to do with littering than the porn itself. which is another societal problem in its own right.
as for the boar thing? i'm a boar too and i like to study animals so i realize just how bloody dangerous boars are. persistent, big, huge and scary.  and it's interesting about the tiger. but my point on the tiger and boar or let's take something on the same line, tiger and manatee, is the tiger because of its beauty acquires more funds for its protection than the manatee. this was actually stated with how people value certain species for protection over others based on their aesthetics. the manatee as gentle and peaceful as it is, is well, kind of a weighty individual and thus not as attractive as the tiger. so when people who do put money in conversation look between putting money towards the tiger or the manatee they'll generally go for the tiger because the tiger is beauty and grace and strength and ferocity where the manatee is a fat slow ugly dumb thing. it's sad but it's part of how humans place their values.
and yeah, i saw predator though my interest was more in predator than the boar. became an avid collector of predator merch after that.
on note of "changing" things. you also have to do things gradually. look at marvel trying to force the diversity and calling people who don't like it racist and sexist, completely ignoring the idea that they'd already been doing diversity before with the x-men, avengers,ect. that black panther is not the first successful black hero movie, that goes to Blade, the vampire hunter. but, because right now it's trying to be forced rather than natural and it's more about "my diversity" than good story and the story is secondary, marvel in book sales is tanking horribly. not to mention since marvel is angry fox has the x-men they are trying to rid themselves of the x-men and many fans jumped ship because the x-men were their home base in comics (myself included).
however on note of doing it right, look at fate stay night putting a flat chest female lead who is fully dressed in more or less practical armor. why is she successful and squirrel girl and captain marvel are tanking? one, she is pretty so she brings in aesthetic appeal. two, and this one is actually more important, fate stay night focused on making a good story, a story where the heroes are relateable.
and i do believe myself change is needed. while i'm anticensorship I'm not protraditionalist either. hearing diversity and comics go on and on whining about strong women or flat chested women irks me because it isn't a necessity, it's just something he's grown up thinking is a necessity in all characters. course he actually kinda makes fun of manga too which does have more variety. but yes, i think at least with western comics more change needs to be done.
with my own comics i base it on a matriarchal society where the women are larger than the males and thus dominate society as a result. and the women are fully decked out in armor or ninja gear without it being sexually revealing because that isn't their need for bringing a mate. so i myself am trying to place a different view on how a female character can be viewed and the male ones as well, since they are weaker in this world and often need help from female characters. but one has to take such things in stride and not force them or you end like marvel.
On note is i've also heard of artist trying to change up things as they get popular to be more conservative or what not and losing a large core of the audience. one has to keep in mind that if you want those changes you need to already be doing them from the get go. I asked my audience recently if they wanted me to put my gore in a separate gallery to what i have and they said no, and i think it's because the audience i've garnered is used to that from my content and knows it'll show up. some even coming specifically for that. so if you want this change as an artist it needs to be done from the beginning, not after you're popular. those who are doing this with popularity are either doing it because A: that's what they want to do (and to be fair you're never going to get rid of the libido, not merely on men but women too. don't mistake that this is a thing only men want. points at chris hemsworth's sweaty body and how many women enjoyed that) or B: they're doing it for fans and will regret it later because they've pigeon holed themselves into a particular set of content. I feel truly sorry for those in B because they will end up needing to do things over and over they do not like. one needs to grow with what they enjoy and not do it merely cuz of popularity.
i hope this makes sense and why i have disagreements.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to mortalshinobi [2017-11-13 16:40:20 +0000 UTC]

I do think you make a lot of good points - especially at the end regards how one should 'start as you mean to go on' so to speak. I can appreciate it's hard to change an audience you've already garnered. I think this is why a lot of artists - musical ones too - struggle to hold onto the same fanbase. Children are born superficial, and have to be taught otherwise, but even when they're not a lot of people do kinda reach a different frame of mind, usually around their thirties I'd guess, by which point some may be seeing children growing up, have seen broken homes, adultery etc.

So... A lot of the time it's not necessarily that a person didn't start as they meant to go on, they just didn't know that they were going to want to be going on differently when they started... usually because nobody gave them the tools to make that kind of an informed decision. It can be really hard to shake a reputation once you have one, and I fully agree it gets even harder when you're in the public eye in some way - sometimes your career, your entire quality of life, depends on you not changing...

Although at the same time, it's worth remembering that for all those same reasons, fanbases also change. People get bored, or simply grow up/out of whatever it was they used to think they liked. Upon reflection with age, some may even work out that some things they used to think were 'OK' or 'harmless' or 'fun'... actually aren't what they seem.

So I think a lot of rejection comes from the voice of the middle fans when you think about it: the one's who've just joined on premise of what went before, and the ones who still like that - not the ones who moved on and abandoned [whatever it was] because they'd realised it wasn't as good as they thought, or perhaps because they discovered moral misgivings about something.

This is why marketing towards children is particularly important, and one could argue comic books kinda come into that - all sell a narrative, and that can be very persistent (and promote bad things).

By the way your comic sounds kinda interesting! [just wanted to slip that in somewhere]

I disagree about the 'forcing' thing though. As in, is it forcing if someone genuinely thinks it's time for change? Consider, if you will, the original Star Trek series. Actually, you can't get more *forceful* than that, I think. Nothing by today's standards even compares.

"We want something like a cowboy series, but space related. Family safe to compete with other networks." - they said.
"Sure!" Said Gene Rodenberry, and then promptly told them about his ideas, which they loved. Of course it would be a male captain! There was a female second in command, but he made sure they knew she was "second" and they seemed alright with that.

The pilot episode was shown to the test audience... But what he hadn't told anyone was that yes, a woman was second in command, but actually the captain would be abducted at the start of the episode and the rest of the time she'd be in charge! The audience seemed to like the show but that first officer was a no-no.

"Who does she think she is?! Bossing that man-" [who subsequently became Spock] "-around!"

The backlash was loud... Interestingly though, it was most indignant and loudest not from men... but from women.

"She should know her place!"

Gene Rodenberry got a bollocking, and told there'd be no more made if he kept her as first officer. He emphatically agreed, and assured them: no woman would be in a position of command - ever. Feathers smoothed, he was allowed to continue with the production of the show, but he was a sneaky bastard.

They let it go straight to air, having merely asked him: "But there isn't going to be a woman in charge at all is there?" - to which he answered honestly...

And stuck a BLACK WOMAN in a UNIFORM and gave her the title LIEUTENANT!

But it was too late... the show had aired, and the 'damage', so to speak, had been done.

A woman in the military would have drawn attention enough, but people were so incensed by a black woman being anything other than a maid (before that instant in time, that's all black women had ever been shown as), they almost completely missed her gender for it.

The show carried on, but at the end of first season airing, Nichelle Nichols who played that character, found out that the station had been withholding all her fanmail. They were attempting to bully her into quitting, you see, and it worked. She quit. Except that someone special found out about it, and decided to pay her a visit, and ask her to stay on cast:

"I'm Martin Luther King Jr., and I'm you're biggest fan."

The show WAS cancelled. It was rejected, canned, binned. The number of people who hated it, were (one presumed) far greater than those who'd enjoyed it, or been inspired by it. Funny thing though... 'Star Trek' didn't vanish from history as a 'before it's time' mistake. In fact, it seems crashing through in such a way may have ended some careers so to speak (or at least it was pretty short-lived), but the waves it created are still felt today, and MLK was absolutely right to have taken an interest, and to do all that he did.

When one says "it's forced", you need to ask from whose perspective that opinion is coming. When you think about it, it's only coming from one place: privilege, and those who feel entitled to it. Ask anyone else, and equality is long, long due. Force of artistry, music, or film, is unquestionably less painful than the kind of force of civil unrest that people nonetheless will feel they have no choice but to fall to, if inequality still mars their lives and their quality of lives. Personally I'd far prefer a film producer 'force' the issue, than a whole bunch of angry black folks taking to the streets - wouldn't you? I'd rather be told gently, shown by example that equality maybe isn't so bad... than to have my privilege wrenched from me by an angry mob.

I'd rather have tomorrow's minorities inspired by portrayals of equality and co-operative teamwork... than by the narrative of news covering real-life violent protests backlashing against oppression. One of these things means I'll get talked to and will bring out the best in me, as the person who otherwise stands to lose from equality. The other thing means I get guillotined. [gulp] It's in the best interest of white people, of straight people, of religious-dominant people... to not drag their feet too much.

[Note I don't mention women, because women aren't a minority. The prejudice therefore that women endure, is far, far more integrated and harder to address, and arguably even more important at times... Because how strong must a prejudice be, to affect 50% of a population as a rule? Pretty fucking strong. Stronger... than anything else. When you take into account cross overs, sexism impairs the wellbeing of likely well over 60% of the human population - nearly all women, and quite a lot of men (more than would balance the women who are advantaged by it).]

So anyway, I disagree about what 'force' is, and the positive impacts that can be had from standing up for change. However, I think from a different perspective your point still stands: by that I mean 'sacrifice'. So when there is a backlash against change, 'forced' is one of those words used to defend the backlash, which  matters not as either way: the person trying to enact change receives a punishment, and a warning therefore to them and anyone like them, not to try such a thing again. That's a sacrifice some can afford to make, other's can't, some feel like they must make it, whilst others don't feel they are able to make that kind of sacrifice. We are born, after all, unequal...

So it's on those of us who 'can', to 'do', so to speak. You would be right to say it is unfair to ask of all people however to be people who 'do', because we are as individuals unequally 'able'. That's why I want to make it clear I'm not demanding, I'm not really even meaning to ask... It's a hard word 'ask' because it means so many different things depending on your point of view.

All I'm doing is just trying to put the idea out there... And asking those that can (if that's something a person can identify with at the time), to 'do'.

I also think the manatee follows similar rules to those I mentioned before, about what people are taught to consider beautiful. Sexual attraction doesn't explain why people love dogs more than cats (when there is a preference), or why we prefer birds to spiders as a general rule, and spiders to mosquitos from a different perspective. Culturally, sexual objectification has come to dominate, but that's anything but natural, or sustainable.

I'm really sorry... I think I waffled a little. I'm really hungry and tired right now! Anyway, it's been awesome talking to you. Please post a link to your comic!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mortalshinobi In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-13 18:33:34 +0000 UTC]

mm. I'll have to disagree with a major part of your debate here using the original star trek. as you mentioned the writer was basically forced to put shatner as the lead when he wanted a woman and was being told not to put a woman in position of power. he was the creator and "wanted" it. he wasn't being forced, contrarily, he was being told not to put it in. this was the direction he wanted.
now compare that to marvel where characters are being pushed aside by the directors in favor of these "minority" characters even to the point of ignoring and disparaging the original minority characters who were established fan faves and well written. notice marvel saying if we don't like the new minority characters they say we're racist and sexist and yet no one complained about storm a black woman who was leader of gold strike force on x-men. no one riled against rhodey as iron man's second and even replacement for lead positions when tony was there. no one railed against blade, the black vampire hunter. why? because when characters like storm were made or the lieutenant in star trek, the story was made to include them from beginning. no forceful need from the directors, no coddling the characters as "special" and needing to avoid pain or recrimination. so said characters grew alongside their white counterparts with neither one being derided.
 now compare that to now adays where they've put in x-23, fem thor, mile morales and ect.  what's happened? marvel keeps trying to coddle their minorities and not give them serious harrowing task. not only this but if the original shows, wolverine for example or peter parker, the newbie always has to be showing them up for some reason and say they are better. this is not natural, this isn't fluid and most of all, the fans don't want it. and marvel's sales are tanking. you see each great artist and writer leaving marvel because the director is stifling their creativities to force this "diversity" into the stories, ridiculing them for being white or male. and what's happened, dc is absorbing them all. dc who isn't forcing the acknowledgement of cyborg or kyle reyner or giving the characters an easy time for being minorities. nah, they'll go through the same garbage as their white counterparts and fans show their support because these are real characters who earned their keep. same with ohara in star trek. i don't ever recall her being coddled or being shown as better than the male characters who were white, but being on par with them on an equal field.
this is what i mean by forced, where it is literally pushed by the higher ups and the workers and fans don't want it. not merely this but said "minority" is belittling the established world and characters and showing them up as "better" while not being challenged with things that will really push the character emotionally and physically. this is what it is to be "forced." if someone wants a lesbian character in a comic who is hispanic, fine. but said character needs to go through the same heartache, the same risk and emotional pressure that their white straight counterparts go through and not be belittling the characters who've already gone through this. that's why people are giving the cold shoulder to characters like fem thor, mrs. marvel and america, because they are forced down people's throats, have it easy and are belittling the original characters and their world and no one likes that.
now as for growing up and not wanting a thing? it's actually a thing of putting something new in the old thing gradually while still keeping the same feel it originally had. we'll take something that's been successful for a long time. my little pony. each new generation is new with new takes on the characters but the base is still the same, they're cute little ponies having adventures and being friends. what do you think would happen if they suddenly threw in death and blood into that, or made a serious story of depression and dying that wasn't gradual? what if twilight suddenly became antagonistic and hostile to all her friends and they kept trying to say twi is so cool while she does that? i'll bet you fans wouldn't take to that very well. new elements need to be gradual but fresh enough to keep the original audience who tires of things after a time.
as for hating the old stuff and thinking we'd never be into it if given the option? I have to disagree because you'll always have a starting point somewhere. i mean look at the series sword art online. many who've been with anime for a long time say don't watch it, it's horrible, watch this instead. but sword art online is a basic series that's open to novices who haven't seen anime before and even when there's better far superior options they'll often start with something like sword art online and enjoy it for a good long time before they start to move to better anime.
or with myself with comics to take a direct example. what do you think i started with in regards to comics? did i right off go to things like ghost in the shell, ninja scroll and watchmen? no, of course not. even though they were available when i started i had simple taste. i started with superman, batman, x-men. the things that were most easily accessible and bring you into it. not until i was older and started exploring more into what i wanted did i move away from comics and into manga. and even there i started with the easy accessible mainstream things. (true that my first one is one still considered good which was evangelion.) but what did i choose after eva? naruto. bleach. things that are considered very mainstream and basic for anime because, well, i was still new to it. not until i was  in it for awhile did i appreciate the deeper messages to eva and did i start looking for things that had deeper characters than naruto and bleach.  and even though i've moved on from said characters, do you think i hate the characters i grew up with? hell, i'm drawing a piece of a ninja turtle right now. how old are the tmnt? what cartoons did you think i started with? and yet, fans still enjoy them. they are simple yet fun and even though i'm not into spidey or x-men like i used to be, I happily went to see the new thor movie. why? cuz even though i like deeper stories, simple fun stories with characters we grew up with are still great and enjoyable. we'll all have those simple starters even when deeper stuff is available and growing up doesn't mean we'll hate them later, it just means we want more from the story. so this is how i see it at least. hope it makes sense.
as for the spiders vs birds? that's actually biological. we are drawn to color, to certain sounds and certain things we're programmed since being small to avoid lest we actually lose our lives to such things. there is programming that says "avoid spiders. they're dangerous" and in truth many are and can kill humans. thus such programming is biological, not simply aesthetic. the thing with the manitee and tiger can also be claimed this way. when searching for a partner in the wild you want one that is healthy and fit enough to survive, not a large one who will get sick and die off or be easily picked off by a predator. so we often apply this to things we like visually as well. now there are exceptions that override this rule as most people still enjoy seals for example, who are fat sausages, but... they have another bio factor that drives us. they have the "cute" factor which biologically we associate with babies that need our love and protection. thus despite overriding our views of "fat" they are hitting our views of "need to be protected." a lot of such interest are biological based on our biological needs for survival. and while we can show and teach people to say, respect sharks and spiders more, the biological fear there will be very difficult to override because there is real basis of which to fear such creatures and stay away from them. so a lot of the things with animals and a lot of things with humans, say thor vs the blob, are biological narratives programmed into our system from the beginning. and such aren't easily overwritten.
hope these things make sense. ^^
on my own story and interest, i've had that since i was little because i had strong female role models in my family. my first favorite hero was actually supergirl. my fave cartoon movie was the last unicorn. on the other hand my favorite tv show was ninja turtles which is rather more mainstream and normal for a guy. so even with female role models certain things happen but my desire for the matriarchal story was natural and a thing i want. i've worked making this world for years because it's a desire i have as a writer and creator. but if i don't want it, like say i have two clients obsessed with zombies one who loves making his friends into zombies, then i'll actually get sick and tired of it because it's not a thing i'm majorly interested in. i may have a passing fancy for it but i'm not into like my two friends are and i sometimes think this may be a thing with artist too. they had a passing fancy but it overtook the career they wanted cuz that's what fans demanded. it's a give and take relation and sometimes you just have to be careful on it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to mortalshinobi [2017-11-15 11:49:31 +0000 UTC]

Ahhh... I think I understand now.

I kinda didn't before - because I know NOTHING about comic book characters, honestly. So all I see in the films, is a mostly-white cast and some hero names I vaguely know, some I don't, and wondering why they aren't more... 'colourful' to put it nicely.

I know nothing of the actual minority comic book heroes. Sadly though, maybe that's kinda why the directors did what they did - widening the audience and trying to not be complete dicks just by sticking to the ones that the white majority might have heard of? I dunno? I think they did a piss poor job regards minorities, regardless.

[I can't help but note recent outrage regards the ?director? of Wonder Woman and his conduct towards women in the industry or something like that.]

When you said forced, I thought you meant 'forcing there to be more minority representation where there wasn't before, meaning e.g. re-casting of existing characters to be different genders/skin colours than before.

:S I'm sorry, most of the things you described regards comic book characters and examples went rather over my head, but I'll try to pick up the names, so that next time I hear them I might actually have a clue what someone is talking about. Sorry about that!

I would  say that acceptability isn't always straight forward. The casting of Storm led to a character that wasn't entirely 'black' by a lot of indicators that might otherwise be identifiable. There's apparently a lot of cultural shit that goes on in America (so I'm told) regards things like this. Things like 'afro' or otherwise the natural hair states for anyone who's genes code for hair the like of west african tribespeople... are apparently looked down upon, or linked with unfavourable things like drug use and crime. Same goes for facial features and skin tone. There's even whitening creams on sale, because 'white is beautiful' - the dominant narrative.

So Storm is a mixed blessing in the  X-men. She's also not 'the lead'. As for Blade... well... You've got a brawny and very violent black bloke who occasionally has trouble holding his temper. This is explained as being intrinsic to his part-vampiric state but it may as well be a metaphor for how especially in America, I'm told, non-white and especially anyone with african lineage by appearance, is perceived. He might be the 'good guy', but even just by the actions of the man who played that character, Blade unfortunately panders to an accepted narrative, so... it's more accepted in other ways. I mean I loved the series, but... yeah. Issues there.

[Would have been fascinating if in the first film, it was a black male mild-mannered scientist, with a violent white female vampire super hero - would that have been as accepted? Well I'd have loved it anyway!]

Rhodey was a nice one (especially the new guy) but again: not the lead so that's 'OK' in terms of acceptability. A military black man is also not a new narrative, and a responsible military person is also not a new narrative, although it was nice to edge the two together for once and I give the series points for that.

Could you point the examples of the 'better than' issue you raised? I'm curious because I'm rattling my brain and I can't think of any I really noticed... Unless maybe the point was not the 'better than' but rather to touch on modern day issues that are real problems worthy of commentary? I can't judge, because I can't remember. Examples would help - I've got The Avengers and I've seen 'Age of Ultron'. I've also seen Wonder Woman and I've seen two of the Captain America films, and the 3 Iron Man ones.

[As I said: I'm unfamiliar with all the others/comic originals. Also: apologies because I've never watched the ponies cartoons either! PLEEEEEASE tell me the female Thor at least didn't have 'boob armour' ]

Just to note: Uhura was a very forced-upon-fans character, when you consider that by that point, 'the fans' were still mostly people who could afford TVs, which made them mostly white.

Nobody wanted her. Until they had her. That's what I meant by 'forced' - Gene Rodenberry rammed that sense of equality down the throats of people who absolutely did not expect to receive it, and many who didn't want it. He educated, through change, but you're right in so much that he *started* with that. If anything, the more recent Star Treks have devolved (horrible word if you're a biologist - sorry for using it) from there since, and lost the importance of the message he tried to put out there: that one day there could be a world where our differences don't actually matter and we work as a team.

I guess only time will tell about these characters you've mentioned that I don't know so much about.

More people watch TV and films than read comics... for now. So, maybe more people will remember those characters with love than you'd think, proportionally. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing personally as I've not really looked into them. Might be they're better at least than the rest of the TV/film narrative that most people get exposed to? Even just having someone who isn't white, seems to be an improvement at the moment. :S Weird though... I SWEAR older films I've seen have, at times, better representation than those  since the 90s at least for minorities! I think the representations themselves, when present these days, might be better in some ways, but there are on the whole fewer instances of representation at times, than there used to be - if you know what I mean by that.

I think what you're highlighting about those female counterparts, is more how sexist the original representation was. Basically there's a reason why you love the male characters: their history. It's just a shame that unfortunately, all of them ARE male. If instead of Captain America being male, you had Captain America being female, it wouldn't take that much to weave that into exactly the same origin story.

She couldn't join the army because she was too small AND a woman (or they could leave that out, and re-write history in no greater way than inventing all that blue-shit magic and armour and science-breaking crap, lol) aaaaand she had a male best friend who she lost to Nazi nutcase experiments, and some wild scientist decided to give her a chance and make her into an equivalent Amazon warrior who then went and kicked shit out of Nazi scum and their invented blue-magic equipment, losing friends who accepted who she was along the way, and the lovely guy she fell in love with too. If she had HIS backstory, we'd love her - right? Because being a hero isn't about gender, or it shouldn't be.

Maybe they're just not brave enough to do that yet. Or maybe it's the fans fault, for clinging to stuff *written in eras where prejudice dominated all narratives* and not accepting that actually, that should never have been the case,  and that some of these beloved characters SHOULD have been other genders, sexualities, or have varying genetic origins. In other words: the histories they are based on, should have been - if we (as a species) hadn't fucked up royally, and instead had rather been the best that we could be.

Or maybe we should just abandon the old characters, and invent some new ones as diverse as they should be. I guess it's hard because shit was in the past, and that gave us these great origin stories when science was new (and poorly understood) and there happened to be this great righteous war over ideology, and people could be via propaganda, believed to be true villains or true heroes.

Nothing since, is anything other than a lot more murky. There's a reason we want HEROES and villains, so... nothing modern, in that respect, can stand up to them. Most of the people who fought those wars are dead, so we can decide who was right and wrong and be extreme about it too - we can invent without offence, because most people who'd object to romanticising real conflicts and events aren't around anymore to have a say.

In summary: I think it's a bit of a mess.

Oh god. Sword Art Online. How much I HATE that series. I've only seen maybe half the first season, but I just wanted to barf at the damsel in distress stuff and the lone wolf crap that was shoehorned into it so much it was painful! It was so unbelievably sexist, and yet they could have done so much more with it (it actually started out with some great ideas).

At best I tolerated that. Unfortunately, it then made me more or less re-live my abortion (not the fault of the series - just unfortunate coincidence) where the two characters adopted a child that then gave her life to save them. With friends (one of them had brought the series for us all to watch that weekend), I bawled and bawled my eyes out for about half an hour and we stopped the episode. Plus side: our friends got to see the pain we'd endured, up close and personal, and I think they all have a greater depth of understanding for what we went through now.

[Sorry side story, but damn that series is one hell of a trigger for me now!]

I am filled with dread at the prospect of ever even seeing that show again!

A lot of anime is intrinsically sexist, but some is better than others. Personally I HATED 'Detonator Organ' for that aspect of it, but overall in other ways I thought it was good sci-fi (I think that one's Manga). I didn't like Akira - again somewhat shitty in the sexism department. Patlabor was a really great detective story, and for the most part wasn't that sexist either. I loved Bleach, but I must admit, I hated the way the main female character ended up by the end of the first series. Man that sucked so much. She got so lame, so fast, it was depressing. Still loved her character, still loved the rest too... just... not great planning in the story department.

LoL I have a love hate relationship with the anime I've watched... I think many have really interesting stories that at very least deviate from the traditional western themes you see being retold over and over here. I guess for Japanese, anime is the same problem and that's why they love our stuff by comparison as much as we love theirs.

I'm afraid biology has little to do with my fear of spiders. I come from a region of the world, and am native for many generations to that region, that has NO dangerous spiders whatsoever. I'm just irrationally terrified of them! LoL! It's not the same kind of fear from anything sensible I can name. I'm more afraid of spiders than I am of venomous snakes or tigers. In fact, stick me in a situation with one of THOSE and I'll at least be thinking about what I should do. Spider = instant irrational flight reaction. LoL. I tried to get out of a moving car once for having one on my leg. Thankfully my higher thought processes were disengaged sufficiently to disable me from understanding why I couldn't get out (that I needed to fathom the seatbelt mechanism first) - I simply clawed at the window and door.

[Note: modern car doors aren't quite so easy to open as older vehicles! If it hadn't been for my seatbelt, I'd have hit the road at 40 mph because I HAD managed to get the door open!]

I actually think spiders are awesome. I wish I wasn't afraid of them.

I'm afraid your assertions about biologically programmed attraction don't actually add up. Thinness is considered a sign of ill health in low tech places and throughout history - being slightly overweight was a sign of success, not ill health. Also, breasts are coveted only in the modern world - prior to modernisation, many cultures especially in regions where clothes are more a burden than a help to survival, saw bare breasted women walking around matter-of-factly doing their daily activities. Oh and by our standards, they were uuuuuuuugly - and so were the pot-bellied males (because without our modern lifestyles, we would all have worms!).

Natural humans couldn't really look any more different from our present standards of 'beauty' if they tried. Their make up was for camouflage or to provoke fear responses in rivals. We had piercings and all kinds of 'not so sexy' stuff going on, not to mention the pot bellies and saggy boobs and public breast-feeding going on. Believe me: a manatee is practically a greek goddess compared to what we look like in our naturally part-haired, wrinkle-ridden, scar-ridden, dirt-caked and 'misshapen' states.

Attraction, my point being, is based on nothing instinctively, we now presume it is today. And liking tigers definitely goes against survival instinct. We value different things, for different purposes, and under different circumstances. As I tried to explain before: western values are now pervasive, but the world was a much more  diverse place regards human cultural values prior to that. Some good, some bad, mostly just different. Some nutcase some way back when thought bunnies were godlike and associated them with shagging. I'm not sure quite what to think about my ancestors sometimes... LoL

Drop a link to your most favourite work (your comic I presume?). PS I LOVE TMNT!!!!! Ever since I was a kid, I loved the first version of it. Kicked ass. I was in love with Raphael, and at that age, what I loved and what I wanted to be was usually the same thing. I hadn't really got the whole gender thing figured out (I think I'm a tad autistic) so I didn't understand why I couldn't be one of them. Same as once in early primary school asked us what we wanted to grow up to be. Various sensible answers (and not so sensible answers) ensued, but mine got the best weird looks from everyone: I said I wanted to grow up to be Chinese. LoL.

[I think I'd been to too many oriental restaurants, and met too many 'Chinese' people who seemed uncommonly polite (duh, I and my parents were customers) and friendly, at the same time as calm, patient, reserved, and obviously smart (they ran a business, and my dad was always telling me how that took brains). I guess the artwork displayed in the restaurants led me to believe that Chinese people inherently could patiently craft beautifully detailed things, and imbued a wisdom I rarely saw in my fellow children or family. I wanted to be that. You can imagine my dismay when I learned about genetics and realised absolutely there was no way for that to happen! Not to mention when I learned to my great surprise, that chinese people were still just people - some better, some worse.]

PPS: I LOVE THE LAST UNICORN TOO! I've got it on DVD and still watch it from time to time, and I even have the soundtrack! I think the music really got to me, and the style was very odd for the time. I've also seen in Scotland, the tapestry that sort of inspired it.  I think it's a film with good messages for some girls - particularly ones that find themselves being labelled 'beautiful', not to mention the frightening transition into that state when 'becoming a woman' as if by magic, when you were previously taken for 'just a common mare'. It's all so sudden. It wasn't great in some ways, but for others I can see it being a really positive influence. She finds bravery. She fights back when others seem not to have, and it's OK to stand out like that. One day I'd like that to be the norm, but until it is, that message is the best we can give girls: you'll be out numbered if you stand up, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't or can't achieve great things if you do.

I'm waffling again...

Anyway I want that link to your comic or whatever you want to share - I'll start wherever you suggest!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mortalshinobi In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-15 22:15:03 +0000 UTC]

alright, if you're going by movies alone then you'll miss the diversity to a degree. storm has been leader in the x-men as the lead leader for awhile, but in the comics, not movies.  and for quite awhile at that. she even was one of the characters in the limited lineup of marvel characters who was worthy of picking up mjolnir, thor's hammer.
as for the better than the originals? that's again, in the comics. specifically in the ones labeled "marvel legacy" where they have the original with the newbie version of them. the biggest one being the wolverine/x-23 crossover where they have wolverine commenting on laura being faster, better and stronger. and in note, with ones like riri williams, miles morales and x-23 taking up wolverine's mantel, that is the genderswapping raceswapping forced diversity. because rather than taking a role of creating someone new and seeing how well they do, they just want to reskin someone already popular like batman and make them black, a woman, trans, ect and use the name to build on the popularity rather than win the fans over through merit like ones like blade or static shock who genuinely have a fan base.
as for blade? well he's from a bad neighborhood, thus the angry character type works. (and people love snipes angry bastard or not and it's how the writers have the character from inception.) to take a character that is like him from a similar background, take the punnisher. why isn't punnisher a peaceful scientist? because that's his background. his background is someone angry at crime and embittered by it wanting to take back the streets for just folk. a thing for natural diversity one has to remember, we can't be blocking what a character can be or what can happen to him or her. if we limit what kind of black characters there are as the new marvel comics do, then all you get is woosy child geniuses who somehow do really stupid things. people aren't liking it, are catching on that all these characters are like this and aren't buying the products.
see a thing about stereotypes is a lot of people like them. sure, blade may be an angry black man and static a hip hop kid, but people like them in these roles. and they work. and then there are ones that are more in depth, like storm, or like the black green lantern john stewart. it just takes time for people to take to them but as long as they're natural and not made for the diversity quotient people will take to them.
as for fem thor... yeah, boob armor. on that note though, that's not what makes me hate her. it's that she showed up and beat up villains cuz they didn't like feminist. that is what pissed me off about her. not that the villains were robbing the bank but that the one mentions he hates feminist ideals.  it's something that got me riled cuz you shouldn't be attacking people for their ideas and such a thing promoted just that.
as for people liking old heroes? yeah, that's exactly it. spidey, superman, cap all come from an age where people were more prejudiced and have staying power because of their age and nostalgia. marvel is trying to simply switch them out, but as i mentioned, people, myself included, hate these random switches. you can't just turn a character for diversity's sake. if you make one, start from the bottom like any other character.  there is also the problem here in that american comics have the issue that they never end. they don't have an end point, just continuous resets. unlike manga. this is why you can never have the full collection of superman, captain america or batman. they have no end goal.
where manga on the other hand... do have exactly this. they have a beginning middle and end. and yeah, i always hear aweful things on sword art online. it's why i haven't given that show a chance. would you believe everyone says season 1 is the best part? geh
now if you want some recommended manga/anime - try claymore. female lead and female coworkers with the only real male being one the female lead is taking care of.
fate zero and fate unlimited blade works have a female king arthur who is a lead role. you could go with fate stay night for her to be the main lead with shirou but you may get annoyed at shirou's innert initial sexism at the beginning cuz his point with her is "girls shouldn't fight" which he does change over time but it's there. (apparently because in the comic the writer couldn't figure out how to make the two hook up so he had the "girls shouldn't fight rather than something like.. she's the hero embodiment of what i want to be..." which is where i would have gone.
rosario vampire is a harem anime with a lot of sexual stuff, but the lead strong character is the female vampire that the male has to rely on.
hell girl is one where the lead female of the series is a young girl who sends people to hell based on their wishes for revenge.
blood the last vampire is a female vampire hunter.
if i can think of more anime with decent female leads i'll inform you as that's something that draws my own attentions. but the main one you'll likely enjoy is claymore as it doesn't involve any of the sexual stuff the others do. and probably blood the last vampire and hell girl. fate and rosario are good but have some sexist elements in them. just so you're forwarned.

as for my own work- i'm posting it here-     (ps. likely we should move the rest of this to being commented on one of my own pics so we don't load this picture of the artist with more stuff that doesn't have to do with their own work. so feel free to put a reply under one of my pics rather than directly here. also the comic will link you directly to the other pages. ps. warning that there is nudity and gore in my galleries just so you know)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

M1to-chondr1a In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-02 12:05:51 +0000 UTC]

Y'know I did write a long reply but then it deleted so I'm gonna tell you this:

You finding this pose reference set which features a naked women as a way to show the the body would work with the pose and for REFERENCE, sexy is a issue with you not the piece. Just because you see someone naked and you're dick goes hard doesn't mean it is necessarily sexual, in fact you would be the one making it so. Moreover, just because a kid may see this piece is not a problem for the artist but their career and the artist should not stop drawing what they want because that may happen. If their parent doesn't want them to see stuff like this is up to them to stop their child from seeing that kind of stuff. It doesn't promote hebephilla, the person in the piece is not a child and is not intended for a kids, please stop insinuating it does.

The author can draw what they want, just because a lot of people watch them doesn't mean they can't. They are not a role model, they are not you kid's teacher, they are a stranger off the internet. It is not up to them to do your job as a parent.

Also, what is necessarily wrong with sexualisation? As a female, I do love me some sexually charged poses and in some cases (like with Bayonetta) I can find that sexiness empowering. Maybe it won't be such a taboo and seen as a demoralising thing if we stop treating it as such. Just cause you act sexy doesn't make you a misogynist.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to M1to-chondr1a [2017-11-02 14:02:27 +0000 UTC]

Please see above reply.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

M1to-chondr1a In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-04 14:01:42 +0000 UTC]

I did and honestly you're a talking about a big topic that loosely fits with the image in question. Yes stuff like porn and the old page 3 of the sun (which from what I remember was scrapped about two-three years ago) can be harmful to little kids however this isn't porn or page 3 or a Nicki Minaj music video.

Whether this piece is sexual or not seems to be more on the line of interpretation then yes it is or no it isn't . It may have features that can be seen as sexy (as the arched back) however that doesn't necessarily mean it is sexual. Just because the pose seems somewhat shy doesn't necessarily mean it's girlification. Yes the artist doesn't say you can't use this pose for sexual things but it is not a concern of the artist what someone does with their free pose set. It can be made sexual but by default it isn't a sexual thing (you can draw Dora the explorer being fucked but that doesn't mean she in her original source material is sexual.) 

You seem to be trying to educate people on the issue of overexposure of sexulisation to children which isn't a wrong thing and I think is a good thing, but you are doing so in a poor way. If this was a lewd fanart of say Peach then I could understand or concerns (or just an untagged sexual piece or the page three etc) however it is not. You are running off of your precieved note of sexualisation and trying to stick it to everyone else and for them to live by your notions.

mortalshinobi does a good job of summing part of what I wanted so say up so I'll quote what she said her (though her comment is right above me):

"I was going to keep quiet, but honestly allowing this to go unchallenged is what leads to more of it popping up everywhere. No, they do not need to censor this on some perceived belief of sexualization or hebophilia. the first pose is literally the most common witch pose in existence, only difference is she's attractive where normally the witch in question is a hag of some sort. that is it. if you believe it is sexualized it speaks more of yourself than others. as long as the person in question if following site guidelines they need not censor themselves for your sensibilities or your perceived sensibilities of others."

Moreover, with the last paragraph of Eva's second comment. A mix of media and parenting does come into play with that type of thing and with children ideals of sex etc. However that doesn't mean people should censor their art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to M1to-chondr1a [2017-11-07 12:31:17 +0000 UTC]

I appreciate 'common' means 'normal' but... maybe it's worth asking how that came about, and maybe it's worth questioning, from time to time, whether that's default 'right' and 'good'. It isn't always. I'm just questioning, and I'm offering what brought me to the notion that it might be worth questioning.

I do totally agree it's whole-world problem. In other words it's not just artists, but it's not just parents, nor is it not just any one group of people or topic area that needs to take responsibility - it's all of us. Definitely didn't mean to imply it was solely the responsibility of this one artist! Hell no! Besides, if it were bad enough by conventional standards to not meet the guidelines for this site, I'd make complaints in that regard.

[Although I would note that complaints regarding damaging content are not always taken seriously in far worse cases. Example, I actually reported an artist on here a year or so ago regards their depictions of gang-raping female characters from computer games in S&M context without their consent (usually they are abducted 'to another realm' or something like) and then them supposedly enjoying the experience. Since then, I don't generally bother reporting anyone unless it's *extreme* and only then when I've the emotional capacity to receive a "No this isn't a problem" response for my time spent. Anyway. That's another story...]

Lastly, I think you're right: I AM kinda asking everyone to stop and think about things, to ask what part they may play. However, in my defence, having looked into these things at great length, and spoken to many other people who have put the time into studying such things, I think it's worth acknowledging that maybe... just maybe... if the problems we call 'sexual assault' and 'unsolicted sexual attention' and 'body image issues' and all the others that I can name which are connected with how people *view* the sexes, especially women... remain as yet unsolved... maybe we still need to do some work on them?

These are just some of the things I've had time to think about, and come up with. I appreciate that a lot of the time criticism comes from a point of view of prudishness or religious dogma. I'm coming more from a logic/science point of view - I'm a polymath. If it's useful, then run with it, if you disagree just bare in mind that what I propose hasn't been tried yet.

We've tried body-shaming taboo-festing prudishness (Dark Ages: helped no-one but the patriarchy). We've tried it your way too though, for the past 40 yrs or so. That's *definitely* better than the other extreme! Nevertheless... we're still missing something. Something still isn't quite right - there's something inherently flawed in both scenarios and we're still getting problems today. So... maybe it's still worth looking into and there's still more I could learn. This is just what I've figured out so far.

At least we can agree it's everyone's problem - a mix  of  media, parenting, and everything else that needs to change.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Evaonix164 In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-01 21:51:38 +0000 UTC]

I never heard of the word "girlification" before, but based on your definition, how does this picture fit that? Curious.

And as for sexualisation, whats wrong with it? As a female, I love me some sexually charged poses. I mean, I know there are some younger viewers on this site, but it's up to the parents to monitor their browsing, not the artists.   

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to Evaonix164 [2017-11-02 13:47:19 +0000 UTC]

OK, well here's the thing. [and you're awesome so please don't take this essay personally! It's just general stuff I've picked up over the years and you asked so I'm sharing knowledge - that's all!]

Scientific research shows that when we see other people, parts of our brains light up with activity, mirroring whatever they are doing. So, when we see someone get hurt: our brain lights up the areas as if *we* were hurt. This may explain why it is that sexually charged imagery, makes you horny! Even if, you're not old enough to understand how to handle that, or if you're not necessarily in that mood at all (or don't want to be).

* Seeing sexual imagery activates the parts of your brain that link to sexual arousal
- and that's whether that's you reading a dirty magazine, or you seeing someone *else* 'reading' a dirty magazine

This gets especially messy when you consider that unless we're on our own when we're activating those parts of our brain, we ourselves, potentially have an *audience* to consider. That audience can know, just from the neurons that fire up in their brain when they look at us, what parts of *our* brain we're using at the time. That makes people feel mightily uncomfortable, even if most of the time it doesn't turn into an actionable threat on their personal safety.

Next there's the fact that once you're horny, you stay horny for a while after you're done getting aroused by whatever stimuli was previously in play. During that time, you build associations between 'being horny' and your surroundings, who you're with... you know - 'Circumstances'. Not a good thing if you're sat on a bus looking at porn on your phone or in the newspaper (thank you "The Sun") surrounded by kids on their way to school.

* There's a cool-down period associated with all human emotional states (including sexual arousal)
* Brains build associations based on analysis of past and present circumstances

Closed doors is a luxury of the modern world, but our brains are still built to run on the premise that there's no such thing. So, it's not on children's parents to control their exposure: we all know there will be children who find a way to access adult-only areas, and to be honest there's nothing wrong with children doing that. It's only natural since... well... that's the best way to learn how to *be* an adult.

Hell, there's nothing wrong with porn! ... Well... At least, not the concept anyway. Not even when you know it's almost certain that children will gain access to it. The real problem with porn is one of context and representation, and of course (the one that everyone focuses on) exhibition.

* Context and representation:
- When and where it's OK to be sexually aroused (by porn, or as described by porn)
- How to be sexually aroused/sexually arouse others (porn *should* be a 'how to healthily/well' manual - whoever said learning couldn't be fun!)
- What to expect of yourself to find a partner/what to expect of a partner (what they/you look like by way of race/body shape/other standards, do, how you know each other is enjoying the experience)

[Nobody learns anything from a fake orgasm and arguably variety/diversity is the key, ideally proportioned in number of examples available, to be representative of reality.]

* Exhibition ('accessibility' issues aren't responsible for as much as people think):
- By restricting access at all, you avoid exhibition. DA has maturity filters so as long as you're using them, there's nothing wrong with making porn.
- Nevertheless we still know sooner or later a child *may* view what we adults are up to (whatever that is - sex, art, magazines etc.) so it'd be wise to take that into account when deciding what porn to make - if you frame it in the context of promoting the best possible understanding of consent, how-to, 'knowing your partner' or 'choosing your partner' that you can, well... harm is going to be a lot more limited.

-------------
Example:
The Sun newspaper (in the UK) has on 'Page 3' a picture of a semi-naked woman posing and smiling coyly to provoke sexual arousal in [primarily] heterosexual males, but the paper is available in shops at eye-height and reach of  your average 4 yr old. That's an issue of accessibility. But the fact that it being a newspaper means that Page 3 is 'read' by viewers in public, raises an issue of exhibition.
- They are getting aroused potentially in public spaces (that's bad for the associations they may accidentally begin to cement over time through daily routines), and that means...
- Plenty of non-consenting people are seeing them get aroused (that's even worse because of what the latter can lead to).
------------

[Kids with brains developing the capability to facilitate processing sexual arousal, go looking for adult spaces, but infants and children younger than that either need help, or they're finding things accidentally. That does *real* harm to them where content of the porn or context matters less than the mere fact that they've seen it, and had their brains triggered to use parts they are not yet ready to apply in the real world.]

Children aside though, sexual imagery out of contexts causes a lot of problems, not least because it reinforces and promotes the notion that [in particular] women *are* sex - that there's a universal equivalence there.

[I can only assume this developed after a population bottle-neck/extreme competition for resources/large populations diminishing accountability through diminishing transparency within a crowd - your guess in what order is as good as mine]

As I said, see sex: want sex, or at least *think* sex. If nearly every image we see is of a woman posed in a sexual way (for no damned good reason, lol) it allows us to form associations between sex and women in all kinds of inappropriate contexts.

[Sigh] I'm so sorry... This stuff is COMPLICATED so it's not easy to explain concisely - I'm not doing the best job.

Patriarchally-dominated societies just don't know what's good for them. They demand (rather childishly) that women be 100% approachable for sex at any time, any place, any context you can imagine. When you think about it, survival has lead women down the path of submitting to this in a huge number of ways. It manifests in what most women define as being 'woman', and sexism in the extreme.

Everything from
- 'walking like a woman' [advertise sexual *interest* in viewers through wagging hips], to
- 'standing/sitting/acting like a woman' [advertise sex through posture, poise and being friendly/smiling openly and being polite], to
- 'dressing like a woman' [fashion is primarily geared to advertise the sex appeal of women]
... is geared to promote the illusion that women are always available for sex, to anyone who sees them.

I can see how this is great for heterosexual men when they're just window-shopping: all these women *could* be theirs! Unfortunately the mirage is utterly shattered for most the first time they approach women on this presumption of sex when (as is far more common) they get turned down.

The consequences of rejection hit pretty hard, maybe not the first time, but sooner later they're going to realise that what they were seeing is almost entirely a lie. The problem thereafter of course, is that men usually blame *women* for the lying part of it. They never think to ask how they or their forefathers played a role in the development of this terribly disappointing [not] get-sex-free visual landscape.

To make matters worse, men are usually raised with a strong sense of entitlement, not to mention the 'right' to 'sexual freedom of expression' where they feel authorised to inform any woman that they meet "I've been sexually aroused by you" with an expectation of reciprocation. It's a pity so few people learn that any freedom is of course in truth an exercise of power, and what that therefore means with regards to their behaviour.

Anyway, anything that promotes that women should or are (as default) 'sexy' no matter the context
- whether they're your work colleague or your lover,
- in a public space or in your bedroom,
- on public transport or walking alone,
- advertising a restaurant or advertising medical support,
- sexually interested in you or *not*
[I'm using 'you' because English doesn't have 'vous']
[Anyway you get the point that this list is looooong, but that the list of 'healthy contexts is a lot shorter]

Is kinda feeding into a shit-tonne of problems that women have to face. To be fair, also the bitter disappointments and frustrations of many a man too, not to mention the restrictions sexism can and does impose on a lesser number of them.

Your art is super-cool - all this is just to give you some additional background. You're totally right kids shouldn't be viewing what you've made here if you've checked the 'mature content' box and incidentally, as a rule as porn, what you've done is pretty low-impact! That said, I'm hoping maybe some of what I've explained makes sense (I don't explain all that well - takes forever to write this stuff), and that maybe you can see how some of it (limited!) *may* applied to these lovely little drawings you've produced.

[Nudity is a non-issue: there's been plenty of cultures where men and women did their day to day activities mostly naked - how would our species have coped before we turned to the use of clothing? We didn't drop our fur overnight. We had to *learn* for the most part (still have to be taught this from childhood even now  for it to embed) to associate nudity with sexual arousal. Only people in colder climes have any excuse for viewing nudity as a 'novelty'... unless of course they (more probably) did the sensible thing of crotchless clothing so they didn't have to freeze their asses off (seriously: their actual asses!) every time they wanted to mate, give birth or simply defecate.]

Sexualisation, objectification... the latter is *always* harmful but the former can be just as harmful in the wrong contexts (outside of intentionally sexually arousing materials or actions/behaviours). You may have checked the mature content option when submitting, but you're offering this template up for anyone to use, anyhow they like, so... that kinda means there's no clause to say "Please note the sexualised nature of [this/these] pose[s]. Please do not employ them in producing materials for children."

Regards applying 'girlification' to your own poses...
Definitely not the top left one (that one's more sexualised by the curved back etc.). It applies maybe little to the one on the right, maybe a little to the one in the middle. Shyness is often associated with child-likeness, and body shape - especially thinness - are cues that suggest adolescence/child-likeness. Innocence in facial expressions might be another (definitely not your centre pose - her facial expression is just great!). The one on the right might be the bad cross-over because it's had to tell whether it's childlike [Oops!I Slipped Off My Broom!] or sexual [Ooo!This Broom Just Did Something *Naughty!*]

If you actually read this far I'm very impressed because most folks wouldn't bother (thank you for your patience) and... I'm gonna leave you in peace now!

PS I'm female myself but I'm a polymath which kinda gives me a category all of my own... A level Bio/Chem/Phys, BSc Env. Sci, PhD Elec Eng, and whilst doing the latter, psych/social professors constantly telling me I should have done my PhD in their subject area (very frustrating!). I compose piano/do lesser arty stuff (I will NEVER be as good as the likes of you I think!)... I'm not good at public speaking but I always *try*. I love dragons. I may be mildly autistic. :S

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Evaonix164 In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-02 15:18:25 +0000 UTC]

Okay so, first, I I scrolled through your comment before reading it and I see all this stuff about sexual objectification (is that a word? It is now!) and then at the bottom I see "I love dragons " It made me laugh lol.

For the most part I understand what you're saying, there were a few parts I'm not completely sure, so if I repeat something you said, I'm sorry.

And I see what you mean, and I really do think we need to limit the type of sexual stuff that's readily available to young children (like the newspaper you talked about) but at the same time it's also a problem of teaching children proper times to indulge in that behavior. Kids learn that touching certain parts means pleasure at a young age, and most parents jump straight to "No! Don't do that!" instead of "I understand that feels nice, but you should *only* do that at home, in your room" which usually causes a sense of taboo with being in touch with your sexual side, which isn't good. Sexuality is, usually, a BIG part of being human and shouldn't be thought of as bad, but embraced, within reason. Bad manners to just whip it out and masturbate in public, you know?

I took a bunch of psychology in college, and how childhood experiences shape negative behavior was my favorite thing to learn about, and there's a lot of research that shows people (not just men, women too) who have trouble with rejection usually have a very poor self image. A lot of people with self esteem issues may make up for it with an inflated ego, like entitlement or thinking of themselves as the bees knees, you know? Something thats usually taught as a child.

I'll use myself as an example. When I was a child, I was a healthy weight, and just like any normal kid I loooved junkfood. Well everytime I'd pick up something sweet I'd hear "You keep eating like that, you'll get fat." That's all it was with my family "You'll get fat," like it was the worst thing I can do and as I grew only I developed an unhealthy relationship with food. Everytime I ate, I'd get so upset with myself I'd feel physically sick, so my body would start associateing the sick feeling with eating, and eventually even the sight of food made me ill. (I'm now back to a healthy weight, but sometimes I still have problems like this that I'm slowly working on)

It's kind of like this with kids and sexuality, you tell them something is bad, and they start feeling bad about having those feelings in the first place, but it's not like they can just turn them off. Again, it goes back to the parents of teaching them proper ways to cope with rejection and their urges, something very VERY few parents are comfortable talking about.

Now here's where things get dicey. Men, in general, are at their sexual prime when they're younger and slow down with age, while women feel it more as they age and near menopause (even though they're most fertile around 19-30, roughly) so yeah, generally speaking, young men are more sexually demanding than young women, we can't expect to control that, BUT they can control how they handle those feelings, and I think we can both agree following women down the street harassing them is NOT the way to do it. Again, something not many parents talk about with their kids. My point here, is it's okay for women to be sexual, so long as it's the right place (please don't go walking around the grocery store in a bra and panties, you know?) and they're comfortable doing it. Female pornstars get a lot of heat for what they do because a lot of women think they're setting other women back by allowing themselves to be sexualised, which I think is BS. They're consenting adults and most of them actually enjoy the line of work, you know? In the end, I really do think it's a mix of media and parenting that needs work, and, of course, no matter how loving the parents, how good someones childhood may have been, you're always going to get bad apples that just don't care, that want to hurt others, and couldn't care less about a womans consent.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to Evaonix164 [2017-11-07 11:36:58 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much for sharing your story with me, and I can't imagine how hard that journey must've been. I think you're a miracle just to get as far as you have - I've known people who didn't make it.

It's weird, I got the same "Don't eat that" etc propaganda but for some reason I was able to reject it but... maybe that's because 'eating healthy' actually did me no favours so I if I didn't feel good eating as everyone told me I should, I guess I must've come to the conclusion early in life that they were wrong, and I was right. I kinda stopped listening (although it still upset me immensely). Turned out I was constantly being told the symptoms of a hormonal imbalance that nobody knew I had (until age 28!) were the fault of my poor choice in diet... Which it turns out was actually me self-medicating, and my condition would have *worsened* if I'd followed the advice foisted upon me by family/friends/strangers.

I don't know if that was the thing that made the difference - I wish I knew because understanding might offer a means to protect other people in a similar way if it were something healthy to reproduce in other children's upbringings. I have an unhealthy relationship with food *now*, but not for those reasons - lol! Medical reasons instead, thanks to a horrid hereditary condition I didn't even know I had but nearly killed me 2 yrs ago, out of the blue. Anyway...

Yeah I totally agree sexuality is absolutely an adult thing, and perfectly healthy! Hell, it's not something that should really need to be' behind closed doors' either. It's only the matter of consent that bothers me (only because I've experienced the harm sexual liberties can result in). As long as the folks witnessing and involved are consenting in an adult mental capacity (note: it's not just children that applies to), then I think all's fair in love and war. Time was a group was small enough that you'd notice if two people went... 'missing', and if you walked near some bushes and heard groaning, you'd just turn around and walk right back and leave them to it (exclusion being if you'd been led to believe you or someone else in the group was in an exclusive relationship with one or other person in the bushes!).

In fact I reckon one of the reasons why porn is no natural is because it would make sense for us to be cheered - not disgusted - by other people having sex (excluding children, obviously). Being aroused by the sounds of your fellow group members getting intimate, would encourage you to do the same with your partner, or to find one, and if there were to be offspring born, they'd then end up being born at roughly the same time of year - or at very least at correlated intervals. That must've had advantages for us, if not in the coinciding timing of births, then in the reassurance of group cohesiveness that would come from acts of intimacy. I think if porn reflects involved parties honestly enjoying each other, then it's educational, inspiring, and reassuring for anyone (other than infants) who chooses to share in that experience by watching it. You c(sh)ould learn good things from porn.

It's unfortunate that as a general rule, that's not the only type of porn out there, and I think it's still outnumbered for access and sheer amount archived, by types of porn where potentially nobody involved is actually enjoying it, or worse is actually faking it whilst enduring damage (early onset of double incontinence for example has been a problem long associated with the modern porn industry). I do think that needs to change, it's just a shame it's hard to speak to people on both sides to explain why it's change, not necessarily either side (pro or anti porn) getting what they think they want, that is more what really we'd all benefit from.

Privacy really should be more about self-restraint, not restraining the freedoms of others. By that I don't necessarily mean "Just don't do things in public you wouldn't want others to see or shouldn't want others to see" but actually the unspoken courtesy of simply *not* watching, or *not* invading someone's privacy when you could. That's something a lot of adults don't seem to learn, let alone teach to children who at least in some ways can be excused for instinctively doing the opposite and always craving access to what they're told they shouldn't access. I think that would go a long way to ending entitlement issues:
"No, you are not *entitled* to look at every woman around you as being a piece of meat, as happens when you look upon them through the sexually-influenced goggles of your own perspective."
not to mention
"No, this lesbian couple is not here for YOUR amusement, if you see them kissing, give them their privacy and LOOK AWAY. You do not have a right to watch them, just because they're in public!"

I agree it's a mix of parenting and media that needs changing. You really nailed it with the 'sexual is fine, in context' bit.

You are super awesome.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Evaonix164 In reply to TreeWyrm [2017-11-07 23:08:34 +0000 UTC]

Aw, thank you!

And just to note, this is the most polite "argument" I've ever had in my life. Ahaha

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TreeWyrm In reply to Evaonix164 [2017-11-08 12:00:20 +0000 UTC]

I do try, and more to the point: *you* tried. So I had to try as well. You were really polite, and you put what you wanted to say really well, and you dared to dip into things that aren't easy to talk about from a personal perspective. So... Likewise.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TR4NZ In reply to WolfySpink [2017-11-02 18:02:18 +0000 UTC]

"hi i have nothing better to do, so let me comment on something i dont like and say that its nasty"

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Elkfries In reply to WolfySpink [2017-11-01 11:02:37 +0000 UTC]

There's nothing wrong with a set of poses! Anything that might've been considered offensive is censored, it would simply be unhelpful to make anatomy references only to cover them with clothes. <3

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JaniMark In reply to Elkfries [2017-11-01 12:11:26 +0000 UTC]

True that

👍: 0 ⏩: 0