me_irl

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.

And if we're going to play the it's-ok game, where are the sexy men, then?

That's right. There's absouletly no oversexualized man in animation. /s

Do you not see anything wrong with this imbalance even by your own logic?

What are you even talking about? What do you mean with "my own logic"?

But besides all this, for all the pedophile pearl clutching done around here

And what do you mean by that? Are you seriously insinuating that people overreact over fucking Epstein? O.o

you seem perfectly fine with turning on 12 year-old children.

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 ").