HOME | DD

Ghost-Soda In reply to alvaro84 [2018-03-16 22:44:11 +0000 UTC]

It's a stupid sexualized outfit that's sexualized for no reason other than an uncreative inability to make a female character look evil w/o revealing clothes but you do you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

alvaro84 In reply to Ghost-Soda [2018-03-17 05:29:50 +0000 UTC]

Believe what you want. The both of you. I tried to start a meaningful conversation with a possible explanation, but it just doesn't work. You two came up with nothing but prejudices. Sometimes you should try to use your brains. I know it feels strange at first but you can get used to it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ghost-Soda In reply to alvaro84 [2018-03-18 22:39:51 +0000 UTC]

Nobody asked for you to come onto my deviation and attempt to start a debate about sexualizing child characters, you clown. Get a hobby.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

cinalilli In reply to alvaro84 [2018-03-12 13:13:16 +0000 UTC]

It's still really weird. There are other ways to achieve more or less the same feel you're talking about without resorting to Extreme Cleavage. You don't really need to jump through hoops to justify it.

I do acknowledge there is a challenge to change the design to keep that same felling, but I've seen Yaoyorozu Momo redesigns that take the Extreme Cleavage thing and make it a crop top. Or go even fuller goth. Or even a halter top. It's just weird bc Homura is essentially a child: she's drawn like it, it's a children's anime, she's in middle school. She doesn't NEED to wear something sexy and it's weird trying to make a child sexy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

alvaro84 In reply to cinalilli [2018-03-13 20:09:05 +0000 UTC]

Before everything went haywire she was in the age when children fiercely protest if you call them children

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cinalilli In reply to alvaro84 [2018-03-14 00:49:37 +0000 UTC]

Okay there are just. So many things wrong with that sentence on so many levels I don't even know where to start.

The first is the assumption that just because a 14-year-old says that she's not a child (even though she totally is; her frame of reference for "children" is anyone from between BIRTH and maybe 10. Or even just someone mildly younger than her.) that she'd. Actually be anything but a child.

That assumption is just plain stupid, and it's obvious that you're trying to justify looking at a 14-year-old by lying to yourself about what children are. You're 38. There's no way that you'd be doing this for any reason that isn't malicious because you don't have a 14-year-old understanding of childhood; you have a 38-year-old understanding of it. You know that she's just a child and that the outfit sexualizes her in a not only needless but frankly pretty creepy way, and it's deeply concerning that you would think about minors in such a way.

I'm not interested in continuing this discussion. I don't know if you'll receive this message, but your view on children combined with your age and consumed content makes me feel too uncomfortable and unsafe to associate with you.
Ghost-Soda I know you probably have been receiving these messages but I advise for your own safety that you do the same.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ghost-Soda In reply to cinalilli [2018-03-16 22:49:53 +0000 UTC]

yeah, not all that surprised people are feeling the need to defend their weird "moe" stuff but like, nobody asked for their opinion. :/

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cinalilli In reply to Ghost-Soda [2018-03-18 00:15:12 +0000 UTC]

That's true. I just freak out about it a little because I don't want these moe creeps on my lawn or anyone else's, I guess.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0