this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
543 points (98.2% liked)
me_irl
7851 readers
3408 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And what supposed "messaging" do you mean, exactly?
What messaging do you think a disproportionate body type of a woman solely meant to evoke sexual interest in grown men signals to children, specifically girls? And if we're going to play the it's-ok game, where are the sexy men, then? Not handsome, not pretty, but sexy. Do you not see anything wrong with this imbalance even by your own logic?
But besides all this, for all the pedophile pearl clutching done around here, you seem perfectly fine with turning on 12 year-old children. "It's fine when it's a woman with a boy" energy.
What do you mean "disproportionate" and "solely meant to evoke sexual interest in grown men? People with thick hips exist. And depicting women with (exaggerated) thick hips is several thousands of years old.
Would you also call the designs of Aurora, Belle and any other disney princess as being designed to "solely [...] evoke sexual interest in grown men"? Those characters could also be described as out of the norm.
That's right. There's absouletly no oversexualized man in animation. /s
What are you even talking about? What do you mean with "my own logic"?
And what do you mean by that? Are you seriously insinuating that people overreact over fucking Epstein? O.o
These are movies. No one is sexually harrassing children. And children that have no interest/concept of sex don't notice any sexual innuendo (and these body types aren't even sexual innuendo).
And for teenagers developing their sexual inner-workings: these teenagers will get sexually aroused from anything. I'm glad that "unhealthily skinny" isn't the only body type these kids see. And movies are a safe way of exploring these feelings. Without anybody being harrassed.
You spread "no sex-ed books for children" energy, homie.
Edit: Now I found the right words for it: Your urge to shield teenagers from any depiction that's remotely erotic in nature (very remotely) is downright puritan. And I think that's weird from someone who's close to talking pedophile apologia ("pedophile pearl clutching ").
No child should be burdened with the knowledge that hot women exist. It's developmentally necessary that no one encounter a woman in swimwear until they turn 18. Failure to protect our most vulnerable from the permanent damage of this experience is the cause of all today's societal woes.
Straw-man, why don't you. Go for the low-hanging fruit to punch down. That's all you assholes entertain yourselves with while stroking hard.
Am I punching down? I felt like that was just a love tap, sideways. What group do you perceive me to be punching down at? Sex negative body shaming Helen Lovejoy types? I don’t think I need to aim downwards to hit them.