Right. These women are being portrayed in an intentionally sexualized manner though. It's not extreme, but they're attractive, have flushed faces, and are posed suggestively on purpose.
But like, big deal? People are going to draw people looking hot, as they have for thousands of years.
I guess I just don't see how they're sexualised in this image then. Like they're hot yeah, but that's not inherently sexual either. The flushed faces I guess, but I just sort of assumed it was the authors style.
What's suggestive about their poses?
She is posed coyly, regarding the viewer without facing them directly. This may be in part because it's a reliable head shape to draw, (as we see it repeated in the rest of the figures,) but it's also definitely within typical body language for flirtation. There is within the piece a general attitude of playful contempt toward the viewer. The composition places the figures to look down at the viewer, India even bends to look at us at our level with a scolding finger, juxtaposed with a smile and heavy-lidded eyes. This is intended to make the figures more desirable, to create in the viewer the feeling of wanting their approval. It's a common enough sexual dynamic that I hope I don't have to explain further.
The placement of Russia's right arm beneath her bust both creates a barrier between the viewer and the figure and, along with her other arm, frames her breasts, which are pushed up. Both the shading (also note the little line between the breasts) and the distortion of the lettering on the shirt serve to highlight the shape. Similarly the shadows on her skirt are applied such that they mirror the pubic region and provide several lines for the eye to follow there. The bite out of this shape even seems to suggest a pubic mound. Around the edges, too we see come into shape the lighter region of the skirt as suggestive of the legs and abdomen beneath it.
You can take a lot of this stuff independently and explain it as something else, but we have to understand that this is being drawn by a person who communicates in this medium either professionally or as a serious hobby. Artists spend a lot of time making these; the composition, poses, etc. are considered and intended for effect. The artist of this piece intended for it to be somewhat erotic and applied a number of techniques in pursuit of that.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me, thank you.
However I disagree with your statement. It's clear you know a lot more about the technical drawings of art, posings and lighting and so forth, so for this reason I won't go more into it, except to say that to me I see women being depicted. Saying Russia is posed coyly strikes me as you reading something into the picture that isn't made present by the creator. The fact that her arm makes her breast visible is just a result of her having big breasts - having big breasts isn't sexual of itself. The lettering being distorted does highlight that she has big breasts, but again big breasts aren't sexual. The shadows on her skirt highlight that she has some big ass thighs and a fat ass, which also isn't sexual in and of itself. Her clothes highlight the shape of her body, which is a conventionally attractive body, but that doesn't make it sexual.
I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I am trying to explain how - to me - it strikes me as you saying "attractive people are sexual". While I understand that there is an extra layer here, since someone decides to draw them a certain way, I don't see anything in their framing making them explicitly sexualised.
I know plenty of people with fat sses that sometimea wear a tight-fitting skirt, which the does highlight their pubic region at times as well. That's not sexualised.
We've already had it once before when brics posting was last in. It was stupid, women aren't inherently sexual
Right. These women are being portrayed in an intentionally sexualized manner though. It's not extreme, but they're attractive, have flushed faces, and are posed suggestively on purpose.
But like, big deal? People are going to draw people looking hot, as they have for thousands of years.
I guess I just don't see how they're sexualised in this image then. Like they're hot yeah, but that's not inherently sexual either. The flushed faces I guess, but I just sort of assumed it was the authors style.
What's suggestive about their poses?
The easiest to break down is probably Russia.
She is posed coyly, regarding the viewer without facing them directly. This may be in part because it's a reliable head shape to draw, (as we see it repeated in the rest of the figures,) but it's also definitely within typical body language for flirtation. There is within the piece a general attitude of playful contempt toward the viewer. The composition places the figures to look down at the viewer, India even bends to look at us at our level with a scolding finger, juxtaposed with a smile and heavy-lidded eyes. This is intended to make the figures more desirable, to create in the viewer the feeling of wanting their approval. It's a common enough sexual dynamic that I hope I don't have to explain further.
The placement of Russia's right arm beneath her bust both creates a barrier between the viewer and the figure and, along with her other arm, frames her breasts, which are pushed up. Both the shading (also note the little line between the breasts) and the distortion of the lettering on the shirt serve to highlight the shape. Similarly the shadows on her skirt are applied such that they mirror the pubic region and provide several lines for the eye to follow there. The bite out of this shape even seems to suggest a pubic mound. Around the edges, too we see come into shape the lighter region of the skirt as suggestive of the legs and abdomen beneath it.
You can take a lot of this stuff independently and explain it as something else, but we have to understand that this is being drawn by a person who communicates in this medium either professionally or as a serious hobby. Artists spend a lot of time making these; the composition, poses, etc. are considered and intended for effect. The artist of this piece intended for it to be somewhat erotic and applied a number of techniques in pursuit of that.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me, thank you.
However I disagree with your statement. It's clear you know a lot more about the technical drawings of art, posings and lighting and so forth, so for this reason I won't go more into it, except to say that to me I see women being depicted. Saying Russia is posed coyly strikes me as you reading something into the picture that isn't made present by the creator. The fact that her arm makes her breast visible is just a result of her having big breasts - having big breasts isn't sexual of itself. The lettering being distorted does highlight that she has big breasts, but again big breasts aren't sexual. The shadows on her skirt highlight that she has some big ass thighs and a fat ass, which also isn't sexual in and of itself. Her clothes highlight the shape of her body, which is a conventionally attractive body, but that doesn't make it sexual.
I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I am trying to explain how - to me - it strikes me as you saying "attractive people are sexual". While I understand that there is an extra layer here, since someone decides to draw them a certain way, I don't see anything in their framing making them explicitly sexualised.
I know plenty of people with fat sses that sometimea wear a tight-fitting skirt, which the does highlight their pubic region at times as well. That's not sexualised.