💀 i’m hoping this is coming from a well intentioned place, but there are better signs than just breast size you should look at when deciding if art is pedo bait or not. it’s good to look for other secondary sexual characteristics (e.g. her hips), but one of the most reliabile is going to be the proportion of the eyes to the face, and the proportion of the head to the body. neither of those indicate a child in this drawing
i’m sure you can think of plenty of anime examples of characters with huge eyes and childlike bodies which are extremely obviously pedo bait 💀 we don’t need to go around tarring relatively normal art with that label
I followed your instructions and used my functional eye to see “Diane Foxington” in the description. I continued to use my eye to read information on that character, who is canonically very much an adult.
It was in response to the “canonically adult” comment (not the picture itself), because it’s a stupid defense that can be used to excuse anything, as per my example.
But I now see I actually responded to the wrong person.
This isn’t that though. This is a canonical adult, with the mind of an adult, in the body of an adult. Sure it’s used as an excuse for weird pedo shit, but in this case it’s just an accurate observation.
Yeah, in hindsight my comment was a bit snarky, I admit. Gut reaction. I guess I’ve just become a little allergic to that kind of argument because it’s often used by certain types.
In this case you are absolutely right. The character Diane Foxington is very obviously not a child. I was merely responding to that particular argument, but I could have been a bit more diplomatic about it. Apologies.
And the fact that I responded to the wrong comment wasn’t really helping either!
Ha, count yourself lucky! Usually this type of argument is used to defend Loli crap, for example. You know, the characters that ACTUALLY look like 6-year olds, but then it’s argued that “they’re akshually very old spirits inhabiting the body and blahblahpedoshitblah.”
I have to admit though that I’ve never seen it in furry-context, though that could be because I don’t really get into contact with the community much, so yeah. Like I said, it was a gut reaction, nothing to do with the linked picture itself. Note to self: think before you post! ;)
source under this post:
NSFW, furry, bare chest
https://e621.net/posts/3343035
More serious warning: furry
Apologies, I assumed that was implied by the e621 in the title. I forgot not everyone instantly knows what that is.
Everyone knows that E621 is the flavour enhancer MSG.
Yeah. I am one of those people that dont know what e621 is.
Why did I click this
You guys better stop complaining before I find an E621 post you really wish you didn’t click on lol
Furry pedo shit
e: itt: shameless pedos
Sir, that is the former governor of California
This character has bigger tits than my girlfriend, and my girlfriend is 41.
Fake : has girlfriend
Gay : imagines her with small tits.
Imagining tits is gay now?
Well, pack it up, boys. I think we’re done here. Yep. We’ve reached peak internet. Now we can stop and go outside instead.
Is your girlfriend single?
she’s from canada, you wouldn’t know her
💀 i’m hoping this is coming from a well intentioned place, but there are better signs than just breast size you should look at when deciding if art is pedo bait or not. it’s good to look for other secondary sexual characteristics (e.g. her hips), but one of the most reliabile is going to be the proportion of the eyes to the face, and the proportion of the head to the body. neither of those indicate a child in this drawing
i’m sure you can think of plenty of anime examples of characters with huge eyes and childlike bodies which are extremely obviously pedo bait 💀 we don’t need to go around tarring relatively normal art with that label
I am not sure what you’re talking about. The character portrayed in the drawing is Diane Foxington, canonically an adult.
Don’t you know? Every adult woman with small breasts is just pedobait! Even a 90 year old grandma with deflated tennis ball tits.
☝️ one of the top 5 responses when furry pedo “art” gets called out.
Can you provide proof that this is indeed furry pedo art?
Yeah, open the link and use at least one functional eye belonging to a living sighted person.
I followed your instructions and used my functional eye to see “Diane Foxington” in the description. I continued to use my eye to read information on that character, who is canonically very much an adult.
What are you seeing that we aren’t?
I opened the link and saw Diane, an adult woman with small breasts, where do you see the pedo stuff?
a hungry man always thinks of food huh?
“I know she looks like a baby, but actually she’s a 7000 year old goddess in the body of a newborn!”
How many children look like grown women to you? This is more of a self report than anything.
It was in response to the “canonically adult” comment (not the picture itself), because it’s a stupid defense that can be used to excuse anything, as per my example.
But I now see I actually responded to the wrong person.
This isn’t that though. This is a canonical adult, with the mind of an adult, in the body of an adult. Sure it’s used as an excuse for weird pedo shit, but in this case it’s just an accurate observation.
Yeah, in hindsight my comment was a bit snarky, I admit. Gut reaction. I guess I’ve just become a little allergic to that kind of argument because it’s often used by certain types.
In this case you are absolutely right. The character Diane Foxington is very obviously not a child. I was merely responding to that particular argument, but I could have been a bit more diplomatic about it. Apologies.
And the fact that I responded to the wrong comment wasn’t really helping either!
Yeah, I probably could’ve picked a better argument or word it a bit better, I just now realize how bad it is.
Ha, count yourself lucky! Usually this type of argument is used to defend Loli crap, for example. You know, the characters that ACTUALLY look like 6-year olds, but then it’s argued that “they’re akshually very old spirits inhabiting the body and blahblahpedoshitblah.”
I have to admit though that I’ve never seen it in furry-context, though that could be because I don’t really get into contact with the community much, so yeah. Like I said, it was a gut reaction, nothing to do with the linked picture itself. Note to self: think before you post! ;)
Perhaps “physically” is a better descriptor than “canonically”. “Physically and mentally” if you want to be thorough.
Fair, that was a pretty weak comment.