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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
if that becomes an actual struggle session, i'm finding the server room and running through it with a big magnet
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
In the OP yes, in mine, no.
No, not in either. There is nothing sexual about OP.
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.