Isn’t it fucked up that if a character has a shapely body with boobs they are labeled as “sexualised” and the only way to not be sexualised is to have a body thats shapeless and cis-male shaped without boobs?
>>152939375Bunnies don’t have boob, curves, crop top, and tied up ears like that, Mr gooner
>>152939388they don't play basketball, either, faggotLola pawjobs
Why else do you think anime and manga has been absolutely skull fucking american made media lately?
>>152939375What’s more fucked up is demonizing straight male sensibilities and telling half the population that the way they see the world is evil and wrong.
>>152939375Yeah. It's almost like people are sexual beings, and seeing them sexually doesn't necessarily reduce them to a caricature.>>152939467This too. You never hear guys complain about this shit because they don't mind it. For some reason, a certain group of white women have gotten it in their skull that being viewed as a sexual being is the same as looking at them as a fleshlight.
>>152939388oh but being a male human shaped bunny isn’t being sexualised? fuck you
>>152939545Get ready. Next they're gonna come at you with the classic "well imagine if bugs bunny had a visible bulge" false equivalence argument that doesn't make any sense because Lola doesn't have a cammel toe and also breasts are just naturally visible all the time in real life and there's nothing they can do about it.
>>152939375It's sexualized in the sense that it has recognizable and exaggerated female traits. Usually the male equivalent is to have big (but not too big) muscles, well groomed face, and a personality. To have something that's 100% not sexualized would require the need of stick people. Otherwise there's always going to be some sexualization in character's.We are a sex based species after all.
>>152939663>recognizable and exaggerated female traits.Her body is pretty normal and she's a basket ball player so she would naturally be fit.Is this another one of those american things where they think something normal is unusual, like people having normal body weight? Or having their foreskin attached?
>>152939663no the equivalent is male human bodied shaped animals you POS liar
>>152939697You don't think those 3 traits couldn't apply for furry males. I feel like half the furry porn I see is of Werewolves.>>152939691I agree, but what gets interesting is how people actually gauge sexuality. There's that one anon that gets hard at bathroom tiles. Somehow it's triggered his lust. I'm saying that this war on sexualization is kind of stupid because there's always going to be a little bit of that just to give off the sex of the character. It's this conflation of being attractive also meaning that it's porn.
>>152939388
>>152939467If you have to lie to prove your point it just show how little you in fact trust your point.
>>152939663>exaggeratedlol>the male quivalent is to have muscles, grooming, and a personality>and a personalitylmaoSexualised, exaggerated women don't have personalities in your mind?The only way I can see that to be true is if you find female personalities unsexy
>>152939778Well not Lola from Space Jam specifically, but of course that you can be attractive and still have a personality. In fact I'd usually say that's an under-sung characteristic of sexuality. That's why coomers like archetypes like the Goth Girl, the Tomboy, or the shut in Nerd. It goes beyond just the physical characteristics. And the archetypes mindset is the laziest way to go about that.
>>152939749In Australia and the UK you can be a fully grown consenting adult and you won't be allowed to watch porn, even though you're an adult.And I can tell you right now, they're not doing this to stop females from watching it.
>>152939821Now is this all porn or could you still jack off to fionna fanfic stories? Or how about Fanart? My guess is that they're targeting IRL pornography specifically.
>>152939813My point is you decided that a woman having tits is only equivalent to a man with muscles, a good face, and a personalityThe standard men have to try hard to be sexy, women just have to have estrogen
>>152939855Yeah I don't deny this, that why I said equivalent. Because the standards for attractiveness from men to women are different. And yeah there's more subtle factors that men have to work towards to be attractive. A woman could coast by with just her body alone. But that doesn't encapsulate all men, nor woman too and really sexuality is slightly different for everyone. There's dominant overlap (Can't really think of a straight man that wouldn't find breasts attractive) but some people value certain elements over others. What's sexualized really isn't a one size fits all because honestly we're a very horny species that could fuck nearly anything.
>>152939894Right, so you agree with OP that a character with tits has to be banned because women suck?
>>152939849>okay they may be taking down normal and ethically made porn from the internet for absolutely no reason, but how MUCH normal and ethically made porn have they taken down for absolutely no reason?nigga lol
>>152939849They targeted Pornhub first and that's only the beginning.They know how many men use it and so that's what they started with.
>>152939921The opposite actually. I don't think it's worth getting that bent out of shape over it. Yes there's a double standard, but what could one actually do to even the playing field when it's a biologically rigged game from the start. Feminists that point the finger at boobs on characters is ridiculous because to have the complete absence of anything sexual would require the erasure of any female and male characteristics. You'd have to have enby amoeba people. Which might not even be human at that point.
>>152939947OP:>lament that boobs are now illegalYou:>yeah but sexualisation bad and you don't want stick amoeba people>where we're at was inevitable, women are just that strongAnon, your fatalism is that you cannot put tits on anything because women won from the start. How could Lola exist if the world today is what the world always was, as according to you?
>>152939984I don't understand what you mean. Lola exists because the creators said fuck it to any potential objection. And I don't think sexualization is bad. There's degrees to it where it might border on porn but if you're not in that zone then there's no need to be angry at a female character looking female.
what is wrong with you why do you have that is your hard drive
mfers are so damn lonely nowadays that they sexulise everyting
>>152940009You started out by complaining about her being a sex objectLola didn't exist because her creators weren't afraid of feminists, there were none to stop them, it wasn't illegal back then, it was encouragedWhy are you acting like 2026 is the same as any other year in human history?
>>152940040>You started out by complaining about her being a sex objectBut I didn't? I don't object to Lola's design. I was trying to say that having breasts on a design would be a given if you want your character to be easily recognized as a girl. Or at least that's what I was trying to communicate. To be honest I'm starting to lose the plot a bit. I don't even think we disagree but I was trying to make an observation on why something might be categorized as sexualized even if I myself don't agree with the assessment. And I don't agree with the assessment because I think having a sexual trait that's very common on all females isn't grounds to cry about it.>Lola didn't exist because her creators weren't afraid of feminists, there were none to stop them, it wasn't illegal back then, it was encouragedYeah the environment was different sure, but a character like Lola could still be created today, there's nothing inherently stopping someone from making a similar design unless they're in an authoritarian shithole..>Why are you acting like 2026 is the same as any other year in human history?That's the [current year] isn't it? Not much point mulling over the past when OPs issue is about the here and now.
Sure sucks to be in this thread
>>152940232Lmao, I can't even be mad. This is what autism maxing looks like.
>>152939388/thread
>>152940232I love this thread.
>>152940009>Lola exists because the creators said fuck it to any potential objection.I realize that you're a zoomer who has no understanding of what the world was like before smartphones, but in the 90's, Lola was a feminist character. They just used to acknowledge that being attractive is something desirable. Women still want to be attractive, they just don't want men to be able to enjoy anything.
>>152939375>Saxophone plays in the scene, signifying to the audience that the character is supposed to be sexyOP is a faggot
>>152939375i want bugs bunny in a croptop and booty shorts. he'll look cute
>>152939749I have not told a lie.
>>152940015>>152940038this anon gets me>>152940498goonslop design
>>152939375>cis-maleTake your cult lingo and fuck off back inside the butthole that spawned you.
The Looney Tunes Show was a mistake.
>>152939375I get what you mean but Lola was specifically created to be sexy.
>>152941215it gave us the best Lola oat
>>152940232straw man, i did not make this thread to be about “rabbit tits” you fucktardShe has a normal body for a human cis-female, the males have normal cis-male human bodies, forcing the female to not have curves or boobs cuz its “sexualisation” is misogynistic to assume thst being gender neutral snd non sexual is to have a body that looks like a cis-male humans body fuck you
>>152941294>Pretending to care about misogyny for a comebackJust stop it anon. It's not working.
>>152941215It really set in the lie that Lola needs to be goofy to be a proper Looney tune. Everyone knows Tweedy Bird for how Sylvester reacts to him, not for having a distinctive wacky personality.
>>152939375>cis-maleStop accepting tranny terminology and thereby letting them run the discourse. Male. The word is male, nothing else.
>>152941312okay fuck you i have a BBW braphog body, its not “sexualisation” to have it, its normal, i still consider myself male and use male pronouns for myself
>>152941332fuck off language police cis scum
>>152941333>i have a BBW braphog bodypost pics, slut
>>152941317>It really set in the lie that Lola needs to be goofy to be a proper Looney tuneNo, she can be a straightman for the group, there are multiple of them. She just needs to be actually usable for looney scenarios and comedy since that is the whole point of the series. She needs to be fun to watch The way she is set up in the films she is a boring killjoy and does not match the series tone. Even having some of what Minerva had could go a long way.
>>152939375>cis-male shapedKYS tranny faggot furry freak.
>>152941215>see "pilot">it was supposed to be zany and well animated (for this century)>see show>two bachelors struggle with harsh reality of suburban life and get into waaacky circumstances!>bugs is the straight man (literally, he doesn't kiss a single man)>daffy is the reject>and their neighbors are... uh... who else does warner bros have? We'll take the bandit but he'll have to lose his guns, the granny will be good for dementia jokes, and we need a single black mother who whoops peep's butts... warner doesn't have any black women? We'll take the witch>alright what else do we need>mexxycan? Oh this mouse will do, he's already dressed up, we'll make him sell fast food as well, but let's not be racist, let's make him take over an italian migrant pizza parlour, I love pizza>gay couple running a business? Chip and Dale!>who's this elmo fudd guy? He's like Porky but not an animal? We'll need to take his gun from him, I dunno, give him a song about grilled cheese>and speaking of singing, we'll have sing songs every episode too! The kids will love a musical!If it had been made 4-6 years later, I guarantee Daffy wouldn't have a girlfriend, let alone a competent one, and Lola would have been the main character and no-one would have liked her.It's funny how the gayer and more liberal the world has gotten the fewer guns, fun and homosexuality looney tunes gets. Oh wait, that's not funny.
