Sick of female character "desexualisation" rant

Post Reply New Topic

I don't want to live in a world where I'm not allowed to make my girl anthropomorphic animals characters actually look like girls, as in "cute" or "pretty", because of furry fandom, which is "wrong", and because the internet and perverted hypersexual idiots can't tell that they aren't real while at the same time they are complete prudes and need to get over it. I grew up watching many cartoon animal girl characters such as Minnie Mouse and Daisy Duck and even saw adult human female cartoon characters with actual breasts, and often the breasts weren't there to intentionally make them "sexy" but because THEY WERE ADULT FEMALE HUMANS. WE WOMEN HAVE BREASTS BECAUSE WE ARE MAMMALS. MAMMALS HAVE MAMMARY GLANDS SO THAT THEY CAN PRODUCE NOURISHMENT FOR THEIR YOUNG.

But the rest of the world doesn't seem to get this through their head because they are all hormones and no brains. I can't draw my female characters female looking anymore because people will think they're inappropriate. It's almost as awful as telling women that if they get r*ped it's because they were dressed in shorts and a tank top in the middle of summer during a heat wave.

And then there's the fact that suddenly everyone just seems to care about the sexual preferences of a character. Suddenly ALL characters must be gay or bi. I just saw a *lovely* post where someone claimed that Mrs. Incredible is really gay because in the movie she smiled and waved at a woman. Smiling and waving at someone is sexual now, apparently. Then I guess we're all gay because all of us at some point has smiled, waved at, or shown positive emotion towards people of the same sex. I thought I might be asexual but I guess I'm totally a les now huh? That and the fact I like my girl characters to look like girls.

Most of this can be blamed on 'merica, naturally. In spite of their media being completely sex-crazy, they think anything to do with sex and sexuality is "wrong", "dirty", and "sinful". Mothers are lucky they can even breast feed in public without people being offended, even if she is being discreet. It's just stupid.

Many cute and pretty things make me feel good, make me feel less like I live in a crapsack world, even if only for a while. Baby kittens, guinea pigs, stuffed animals, big fluffy pink cupcakes with sprinkles. That doesn't mean I want to do it with them. I hate this "modern" world.

When drawing an anthropomorphic character, it is up to the artist how human they want to design the character to look. Human breasts differ from the breasts of other mammals in terms of appearance. So the artist has to decide what kind of direction to go in. Breasts, especially large ones, are often seen as inherently sexual and sexualised. As a result, some artists opt for a flat chest instead. There's no real correct answer here, anthropomorphic animals are always going to be physically inaccurate in some way or another due to their very nature. It's a stylistic artistic choice, so a certain degree of suspension of disbelief is required.

However, it should be noted that having female characters with a flat or small chest should not be written off as masculinisation or desexualisation. Some women just have flatter chests. Others have average or large breasts. I think artists should be allowed to show any size breasts they want, ideally keeping proportion with the size of the rest of the body. Unfortunately, there is a side of the art community that disagrees and sees this as inherently bad, akin to seeing a woman with a large chest and assuming she must be a flirt then proceeding to shame her for this.

As for the part of the rant about sexual orientation, I'm gay but I dislike forced representation. I like seeing gay or bisexual characters, but some people are a little ridiculous with their headcannons. People are allowed to headcannon whatever they want, however it does irk me when people start bothering the creators for not following their ideas. I'd rather have representation from writers who want to write gay or bisexual characters, rather than because they felt pressure to do so.

"everything is about sex, except sex. sex is about power."
- some psychoanalyst.

I agree with both of your sentiments, but would like to add: breasts are sexy, but when they are used for feeding offspring, that's conflicting, because feeding babies is not about sex. it's, as OP said: mammalian. animalistic. that's pretty disturbing.
it means women have bodies that are not for the pleasure of men, and on top bodies that have biological life cycles. It's the opposite of an image of eternal youth and sexiness. but oversexualisation is being censored, and the line is arbitrary. so what to do?

My suggestion is to draw two to six teats on each side on an otherwise basically human-shaped anthropomorphic animal. just to make it really confusing for everyone.

The older cartoons are better. Made with more quality. Just because they are older, doesn't mean they are not good.

Shes taking him for a ride on the mothership...?

Happy intergalactic home.

Man has a thing for grey anatomy....

The propagandists and "society" as well as the entertainment industry ("Hollywood") plus porn have all studied, directed, and maxed out any and all sexual traits associated with the human race that many of them have become "wrong" because they are so powerful.
One example of how we are all conditioned to "cue" to certain things will help make my above point more clear: In many movies it's often possible to figure out which female is the "star" because she is more colorful, more made-up, more fashionable, and also more appealing than all other females in the script. Because she naturally stands out it becomes natural to many viewers to begin to apply this to females in the real (not studio) world we all live in.
Female glamour is very non-specific in its appeal. Meaning what works on one man tends to work on most of them just as well.
This business of preying upon women as being sex objects is a great separator of the genders in real-world society. When some women decide to use glamour as a manipulation device, and even as a punishment for men, when men respond to it, some women feel empowered by being able to reject men who are clearly attracted to them.
I'm a man and sometimes I react to female presentations in my world. I've learned to NOT REACT at all to them so it's harder than usual for women to figure out that I'm responding to their physical presentation.
.
I like women in general but have found it difficult at times to be friends with them because I seek what I suspect are unusually intellectual interactions with them, and most clearly are not comfortable with sharing truths or significant information with anyone but possible their spouse for the myriad of "the usual reasons".
.
I'm sad that women are so plainly pressured to learn to create and then use glamour techniques as an "adult" activity and without any real passion for doing so. The human desire to be accepted as their real selves is suppressed when it can only be approached via a pre-glamourization ritual that society has programmed all of us to expect. I have at times run my own experiments with groups and have found that a simple opinion of "a certain female presentation" has resulted in a lot of females offering spontaneous feedback that I think was an inquiry into if I had a fetish for that look so strong that anyone in a relationship with me could expect to face pressures to look like that "all of the time". It was a degree of magnitude thing...as creating that look takes about 10 minutes and not much expense to make happen. That, to me, was among many proofs of the extreme pressures a lot of women have had to deal with during their lives regarding "looking certain ways" to meet someone else's expectations. Not a pleasant though process for a lot of them.
.
I join those that have become more and more likely to NO actually risk making real-life contact with the opposite gender due to all of the pitfalls and rejection for all kinds of reasons that seem to be part of the rituals we are all using.
.
All I can think to hope for is that if we all just do what we are personally comfortable with then at some point we may find someone that is willing to accept us as we really are and maybe create a healthy relationship with them.

^^ Is that so Cyber? I liked X files, and some shows like that. I have a mild interest in the phenomena.... more so when I was a teen.

Extraterrestrial intergalactic Interspecies Intercourse...hmmmmmn

She is 'Not my type' lol, but willing to be experimented on....would not protest abduction... nice body, shame about the face... but pretty as far as extraterrestrials go...

Have I just derailed this thread ?? lol

Shame on me....with my sick thoughts of

Hypnotic regression. They was traveling across Eastcoast of America at night. (Boston, NY, Im not sure...memory ) Made detailed maps of star clusters. Again, though, its been debated as to the whole story, whether it was concocted. Yeah that's a famous case.

I know it as antecedents in the succubus , nightmare night terror phenomena of middle ages. 'Demons' and what not. Elves, goblins, fairies, pixes, etc would all fall under that category...

Whitley Streibers 'communion' I know is the a big book, in UFO sub-culture. But I couldn't say which book was the first one that propagated the Grey visual meme into the culture. Close Encounters of the Third Kind, did it on worldwide level. 1977. Another Seminal moment. Reaching far more people than any book ever could. And again with E.T. in 1982!

Somehow, she looks familiar . . .