Coomer artists, please get to work
oh that poster was hilarious! also all the yelling about how the art was 'horny' or 'suggestive'
I mean, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of ass struggles.
That was probably me. I realise that I overreacted or hyperbolised it, and that some of my sentiment was probably just a wider anti-anime sentiment. I came down too heavy on one side and had a puritanical take.
However, looking at the images once more, and some of the images posted in this thread (by the same artist) and people's reactions to them - is it really that puritanical to suggest that the artist intended them to be sexually attractive?
was that a struggle session or what? 4 months later we still got some coals glowing! good times
but like nobody disagreed with that, just the idea it deserved to be called 'horny' and the idea similar content shouldn't be allowed. which might not have been your actual suggestion, but on a forum with lots of rules about horny-posting & nsfw stuff applying a label like 'horny' will get people defensive if it's something they consider acceptable. and why it got so passionate is i think a lot of people would see themselves in the [extremely broad] context of looking good + posing, so saying/implying that wouldn't fly here (though no-one should post personal photos here) provokes a hard reaction.
also no one disagrees that a reddit-tier comment ad-libbing a sexual fantasy about some person depicted on a post would be unacceptable either, the disagreement there was blaming that on the OP---because gross stuff like that can happen in a perfectly sanitized post about something a nasty person finds hot
Yeah, that's true. I would agree that calling to ban it was what made it such an incendiary issue.
I see what you mean on the second part, but to anyone who feels that way, I'll clarify that in my opinion, by nature of being drawn from imagination means there's an added implication of a voyeuristic relationship to the viewer, that they've been created for the viewer? I don't know, that wording sounds too harsh for what I mean. I think if the image was of real people it wouldn't have the same implications. It would just be humans posing for a fun picture. They'd look and feel human rather than as a stylised and accentuated version of a human created for consumption.
Consumption by backwater internet forums too, I'd imagine. That has its own set of implications, which relate more to your last point about how it's not really the artists fault. Again, I mostly agree, but the artists general output of content does cater to a certain audience.
I read that posts and honestly agreed with what you initially said there fully
i just dont like it because the drawings are shitty and getting excited over brics in this way is weird and feels very white
Liberalism is turning countries into characters and shouting slay queen
i was born in the wrong decade, i absolutely would have been besties with marx and engels gggg
Oh my god, you still remember that? yes and that illustration is supposed to be a pornographic image, don't forget it as well.
I always take the bait. I don't want to relitigate this, but just so my stance is clear, that came from me speaking carelessly and the radlib pricks here exaggerating my claim. Here is the claim, which I have no interest in persuading anyone on, but just so you can make fun of me accurately (by means other than replying to this comment).
If you are doing personification of countries, you generally are either using common features or those of the leaders of the country. The most common hair color in Russia is brown (it's blonde in a handful of other countries, like Finland). To make your waifu blonde (with blue eyes and white skin, though those features are appropriate) in contradiction to the general logic of the representation for seemingly no reason other than aesthetic preference is an artifact of the racial ideology privileging "Aryans". I have no stance on the author's personal politics and frankly don't care.
Elsewhere a user shared her portrait of Western Bloc states and having the US be blonde makes sense there to represent a white supremacist state that is obsessed with blondes and has young white women dying their hair blonde left and right.
If a Finland waifu was included, it would make the most sense for her to be blonde, but having Russia be blonde is like having China be Tibetan. China does have Tibetans, but they are clearly not the majority politically or by population.
Also obviously the work is objectifying and gross and laundering that through "oh, the artist is lesbian, are you attacking a lesbian's sexual expression?" is deeply reactionary radlib bullshit to score points and not question your assumptions about media. Since radlibs can do nothing but identity-based laundering of their personal preferences, I will mention that one of my best friends is a lesbian and she also thinks that this is objectifying and gross. She says this because it obviously is and anyone denying it is engaged in motivated reasoning to a pathetic degree.
None of this is to persuade you (the "you" used here was general, not specifically you, bagend). If you disagree with any of what I wrote, then that thing I wrote is wrong. If someone is curious about media criticism I can explain more, but I mostly just hate myself being made fun of for things that don't represent my stance. Fire away, just elsewhere in the thread and without tagging me so I'm not here all day.
Are you really relitigating a struggle session you were a part of on a Saturday?
I hope not. I'll go block the radlib who is the biggest problem in that respect, now that you mention it. There is nothing to be gained from interacting with that user's bullshit if said bullshit does end up getting turned on me again.
I'm trying to find it again but all I'm getting are endless parody posts lol
https://hexbear.net/post/263190
Not quite the original thread, but it's the post that went up to say that the original post was in poor taste, which is the mark of any good struggle session anyway.
It can be hard to find stuff around here because The Creator likes to do a lot of deleting.
I'm sad I dismissed this as a weird objectifying post by some weeb and am sad I missed out on the fun.
Dagos became kkkrakkkers after columbus day became a holiday.
It's Indigenous People's Day/Italian Heritage Day in New York now lmao
I take it that you're from the USA and have never seen Italian people
No they aren't. Do you really think something with marinara for blood could exist?
I love that the US background is literally the Russian flag
If I comment my thoughts on what I want the German girl to do to me I would instantly get banned from this site by the
Spoiler
Also for the record I didn't make the incredibly obvious "she always stays on top" joke I could of made because I have some small measure of personal restraint
An erotic retelling of D-Day that’s Germany and the US wrestling in the sand on the beach
welp, more trans goals just dropped
i have the height and hair colour to be germany
tbh this feels like another flavor of hetalia/countryballs. taking the stereotypical characteristics of a country and personifying them
Countries being personified as women goes back to at least ancient Rome.
Most countries do it. I've always thought it's kinda weird and horny though.
the reason why this sort of shit is so popular is because nation-states have some level of "personhood", so to speak. someone here posted an essay about how arguably nation-states are a type of consciousness of sorts, but for my life i can't find it
this thread show what happens when we try to dial back on use of the volcel police
sorry but...
spoiler
YOU'RE ALL UNDER ARREST
- Show
The VOLCEL POLICE are on the scene! PLEASE KEEP YOUR VITAL ESSENCES TO YOURSELVES AT ALL TIMES.
نحن شرطة VolCel.بناءا على تعليمات الهيئة لترويج لألعاب الفيديو و النهي عن الجنس نرجوا الإبتعاد عن أي أفكار جنسية و الحفاظ على حيواناتكم المنويَّة حتى يوم الحساب. اتقوا الله، إنك لا تراه لكنه يراك.
the nice, kind and cooperative hexbears are gone. and WE'RE BACK
the needlessly aggressive and puritanical people unaccountably argumentative about cartoon illustrations
i deliberately entered a thread full of things i do not like, and now i am upset. how could this have happened?
This is fun and thought terminating. Care to elaborate what makes the art "mid"?
Deviant art aesthetic that you can place when you've consumed a lot of it. For me it's defined by it's reliance on artistic crutches for lack of ability and imagination. Less "my style" from informed study and more this is all I know how to do well. For example, look at the mouths, the same angle on everyone of faces and the hiding of hands so they don't have to draw them. It's something I personally dislike immensely so this part is just me.
I guess I don't see the hand complaint here, looks like they're dynamic enough when the pose calls for it. I'm just apprehensive about reducing art in a vacuum, especially when it's more than serviceable. It seems like this artist is problematic for other reasons, so stigma aside I'd rather appreciate it for being fun after some stereotypes are addressed.
Again, I personally don't like it, that's just me. But I also find the fetishization and nerdiness of it off putting
Certainly, I'm not here for that aspect of the struggle session.
Are we allowed to be horny over Lukashenko's mustache though? 🤔
I still don't get why the hornyposters and the puritans alike get so weird about this. Yeah they're attractive but there's nothing remotely sexual about them, it's perfectly SFW. Everybody needs to chill imo.
if that becomes an actual struggle session, i'm finding the server room and running through it with a big magnet
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.
- Show
Contrast it with this art comrade. It's soviet art depicting attractive women of many races in a neutral context, so it's a great contrast compared to the sexualized BRICS image.
I'm okay with comrades having sexualized media as a treat, but we must take care to see it for what it is.The BRICS image is not "sexualized." There is not a single thing sexual about it.
All the women in your image are scandolously showing off their ankles, so maybe your image is "sexualized" too.
Women's bodies aren't sexual if that's what you mean. You have some learning to do.
That's literally what I'm saying lol. Women's bodies aren't sexual, not in your image and not in OP either.
Another poster already made an extensive comment about exactly how it is sexualized.
Yes, and they're wrong. India's pose is no more sexualized than the women in your image showing their ankles, it's nonsense. I could point to literally any drawing of a human being and find something "sexualized" about it. I see nothing in OP that is actually evocative of sex.
You purposefully mischaracterize what I'm saying by arguing "ankles, lol" because you don't actually even believe in what you are saying
Where did I mischaracterize what you were saying? On what basis do you think I don't believe what I'm saying? I can assure you that I do.
By flanderizing my statement as if I was talking about the clothing. Hence, ankles, lol. Explain what you meant by that then.
I was extending your argument to its natural conclusion. If you can point to some random element in OP like India raising a finger and say that that's somehow sexual, the I can do the same and point to revealing ankles as sexual. I'm not mischaracterizing your position, I'm just demonstrating why I disagree with it.
I was extending your argument to its natural conclusion
There isn't significantly less clothing in OP's art compared to the one I presented. Explain how it is not a bad faith interpretation.
I don't understand why you think it's a bad faith interpretation. I guess I don't understand what your basis is for calling OP sexualized, as you haven't explained what elements you find sexual. All I saw was where you contrasted the two pictures, which left me to guess which differences you found significant. I just figured you were going off vibes. Also some of the women in OP are wearing less.
I'm calling it a bad faith interpretation because I haven't said a single thing about their clothing. Why did you think I was talking about clothing "ankles, lol" when I didn't mention it at all?
Because you didn't tell me what you were talking about! So I'm left to guess, and apparently if I guess wrong it's "bad faith."
Why don't you just tell me what you're talking about instead?
If you didn't understand what I'm talking about, why didn't you say that instead of misinterpreting me to the point of absurdity? Were you engaging in good faith?
Absurdity?? You said you found some unspecified aspect of OP that was sexualized, and I countered by pointing out how even in your example, someone could find something sexualized about it. That seems perfectly normal to me.
And I still don't have any idea what you're talking about! At this point I'm the one that should be asking about good faith! Do you actually have anything or not? If so, why haven't you just said it? You should've explained your reasons in your very first comment.
You countered by finding the worst argument possible. That doesn't seem good faith to me. Maybe it does to you.
Look if you have nothing you can just say so, you don't need to accuse me of bad faith just to save face.
E: What a strange conversation.
It seems like you still don't understand what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to tell you to engage people earnestly instead of attacking them.
I guess we have different understandings of what that looks like. I didn't percieve what I said as a personal attack at all, I just saw it as a critique of your position. It was never my intention to imply that you would consider ankles scandalous, if that's how you interpreted it.
My point was that any drawing of a person could be argued to be sexualized, and tenuous connections like a raised finger or a revealed ankle aren't sufficient to classify it as such.
If you'd like, you could point out what about OP you consider to be overtly sexual, and we can go from there. Because as it stands I legitimately have no idea what you or other people are talking about, I feel like I'm looking at a different picture, the one I'm seeing looks like they're about to invite me to play volleyball or something, not to have sex.
How is that a reasonable interpretation when my image has similar levels of exposure as OP's image? It's not a reasonable interpretation, and I've been trying to point that out this whole time. That was my problem with you.
Now that you are engaging without trying to somehow "win" an internet argument, here's my take - flushed faces, contortion of spine and the body and direct "eye contact" with the viewer taken together seem to be suggestive to me.
You may choose to disagree with me, and honestly, I do not care for the topic strongly. What I do care strongly about is your manner of hostile argumentativeness which is why I bothered responding for such a long time.How is that a reasonable interpretation when my image has similar levels of exposure as OP's image?
They don't? There's considerably more exposed skin in OP and some of their clothes are more form-fitting. I don't see how you think that's an unreasonable interpretation.
here's my take - flushed faces, contortion of spine and the body and direct "eye contact" with the viewer taken together seem to be suggestive to me.
I guess I can see what you're talking about with the spine with Russia's pose, but none of the others are posed in a suggestive way. Adding blush is a pretty common stylistic choice that I see in non-sexualized contexts all the time. Eye contact expresses connection to or interest in the viewer, but not necessarily of a sexual nature.
The impression I get from the image is a vibe of friendly competition, like I said, about to invite me to play volleyball or something. I think this makes sense as a political statement - it presents the the BRICS nations as a rising group that's beginning to challenge Western power, but without being threatening or hostile or something to be afraid of. I could see how the friendly taunting could come across as flirtatious, but it's still not really sexual, it's well within the bounds of a platonic sports game.
Just to jump in here. When I broke down the choices the artist made in this piece, what I really wanted to highlight is that these were conscious choices intended to make the figures more sexually appealing. My thesis is ultimately that the artist knew what she was doing. I'm confident in this assessment in part because a look at the artist's Twitter shows that she's not at all a stranger to making erotic art. It's not to say that an artist who makes sexual works necessarily makes only sexual works, but I can't look at this and say the artist was naive to what she was doing by manipulating framing, highlighting secondary sexual characteristics, and creating, to be direct, a bunch of dommes.
Again, I don't think this is a bad thing. She shouldn't be ashamed of making it and I don't blame anyone for finding the piece hot. That's kind of the point. Politically even, the message is that BRICS are cool, hot girls and you wish you could be part of their thing.
I really strongly disagree with characterizing these as "a bunch of dommes." Here's an image I found from some random sports anime (I did not look very hard so it may not be the best example, but it'll do)
Show
You can see their expressions: smug, confident, and cocky. But you would not (well, I would not) ever think to call them sexualized, let alone that they're evocative of BDSM. And I can't help but think that the difference has to do with gender. A man being smug and cocky is normal and natural, nothing remarkable or out of place about it. But a woman with a similar expression is percieved as thereby occupying a sexual role. That comes across to me as saying that female confidence belongs only in the bedroom, it must be for the benefit of a man who finds it arousing. I find this to be a very sexist implication.
I don't doubt that the artist, being (iirc) a lesbian who draws erotica, included some elements that she found attractive, either intentionally or out of habit. But merely being attractive is not the same as being sexualized. As I've said and will keep saying, I think they're just sporty. And I don't consider attractive, sporty, confident women to be inherently sexual, much less evocatice of BDSM, which again, I think has sexist implications to suggest.
Maybe we have different understandings of what constitutes sexualization. This work is mildly erotic at most, but I stand by my assessment that it is intentionally drawn to be somewhat arousing to the viewer. I just can't look at this work in the context of the artist's ouvre and think that she wasn't aware of the effect her choices for poses, composition, and expression would have. Because of that, I have to conclude that it is intentional.
If it's acceptable that she attempted this or not (which is what I think underlies the debate on whether or not this image is sexualized) is not really what I'm trying to establish.
Well, I guess that's also a question of what is meant by intent. I don't think that the artist made an effort to ensure that people would not find them arousing, but I also don't think they were primarily drawn for that purpose. Not every element of art is a conscious decision, and I'm not really inclined to speculate about it. Objectification and sexualization can be present regardless of the artist's conscious intent.
I've accepted the single point that Russia's pose is somewhat sexualized, but other than that, I don't agree with any other point of your analysis. Ofc it's pretty subjective, but I just don't see it, and honestly I think the idea of "female confidence is inherently sexual" feels more and more to me like it underlies a lot of that perspective, and I just want to reiterate that I really strongly object to labelling them as "dommes," which aside from the sexist undertones I mentioned, it's also exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my original comment asking people to chill. Even if there are some mildly suggestive elements, characterizing the art as fetishistic is an absurd overstatement and overreaction. Tbh I find this sort of discourse over what looks to me like an extremely normal drawing of women to be pretty alienating and kinda gross.
You know, I suddenly don't mind anymore that libs said I'm a Russia-China shill.
I'm now a proud a Russia-China simp. 🥵
I'm just here for the struggle session
