Lemmy Shitpost

parent

[–] lucario_owo@pawb.social 9 points 20 hours ago

I opened the link and saw Diane, an adult woman with small breasts, where do you see the pedo stuff?

parent

[–] fracture@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 16 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

parent

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 4 points 18 hours ago*

a hungry man always thinks of food huh?

parent

[–] brown567@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 hours ago

Sir, that is the former governor of California

parent

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world -4 points 20 hours ago (8 children)

"I know she looks like a baby, but actually she's a 7000 year old goddess in the body of a newborn!"

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip [S] 12 points 18 hours ago (7 children)

How many children look like grown women to you? This is more of a self report than anything.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

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.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip [S] 5 points 18 hours ago

Fair, that was a pretty weak comment.

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 5 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

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.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago* (3 children)

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!

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] lucario_owo@pawb.social 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

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

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 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! ;)

parent

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago

Perhaps "physically" is a better descriptor than "canonically". "Physically and mentally" if you want to be thorough.