• fracture@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 hours ago

      💀 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

    • lucario_owo@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      I am not sure what you’re talking about. The character portrayed in the drawing is Diane Foxington, canonically an adult.

      • Ricky Rigatoni@piefed.zipOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 day ago

        Don’t you know? Every adult woman with small breasts is just pedobait! Even a 90 year old grandma with deflated tennis ball tits.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        ☝️ one of the top 5 responses when furry pedo “art” gets called out.

          • db2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Yeah, open the link and use at least one functional eye belonging to a living sighted person.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              1 day ago

              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?

        • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            22 hours ago

            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.

            • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              22 hours ago

              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!

              • lucario_owo@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Yeah, I probably could’ve picked a better argument or word it a bit better, I just now realize how bad it is.

                • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  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! ;)