this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
469 points (97.8% liked)
me_irl
7869 readers
2504 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
Kids famously hate everything involving butts. /s
I'm not saying that. I was actually thinking about the messaging by the animation companies.
And what supposed "messaging" do you mean, exactly?
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.
You're clearly misrepresenting what I'm saying and taking the piss instead of actually addressing what I mean. I hadn't even elaborated before you started making assumptions.
And why is your example from a family show that doesn't depict women's bodies as disproportionate for the sake of turning on adult men? You're all over the place, dude.
Oh, yeah, I was absolutely taking the piss. More specifically, I was exaggerating my understanding of your position to make a tiny satire of it, because I think it's a laughable position.
That's different than misrepresenting it or building a strawman, because no reasonable person would think I was trying to faithfully represent your unexaggerated views. It's also different from punching down -- that generally refers to taking aim at a group that's at a societal disadvantage relative to yourself, which I'm not attempting to do.
But sure, I was taking the piss. I'll accept that it would have been more charitable to wait to see you elaborate on your take. I've had the chance to see you do that elsewhere in this thread, though, and it only made me disagree with you more, so I think my instincts were pretty on point.
The bit about Helen Lovejoy wasn't an example of anything, it was a reference to her catchphrase: "wont somebody think of the children???!", applied when children are in no danger whatsoever.
So you're salty that I called you out, and now that you realize your mistake you're doubling down in an attempt to save face. Typical Lemmy mean girl.
You sound like a boomer.
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.
Do you mean the African fertility statues with disproportionate body parts? I hope you realize how that only solidifies my point.
Is that a joke? Gaston is a strong man. What part of his design is specifically sexy and revealing? His forearms? This gay man is asking. You could've pointed out the dad from Inside Out at the very least, and even then the only sexy thing about him is the dirty mustache.
What do you mean? Can you not follow? Keep up.
Jesse, what the hell are you on about? I'm saying this site already has a high sensitivity around sexuality involving children for me to have to explain why this is problematic as a kids show AND movies because I did grow up watching Stitch. You all seem to be defending this because you found it sexually arousing at 12 and can't see past that.
They do, and they are. I don't know about you, but I do remember being a child. And I also know that many children are quite aware of sexuality, especially nowadays that the web is widespread. And I can point at my own nieces and nephews for that, because I know they get it and they're barely 9. Do you really think sexual jokes don't escape them? They play dumb, just like I did at that age. Don't insult their intelligence.
Who is talking about teenagers?
Quite the contrary, I'm all for teaching children HEALTHY ways of looking at bodies and sexuality. And this ain't it. You just don't get my point.
Tell me: what's the canonical age that it's ok for people find out that big butts exist and that is an acceptable beauty standard? You're kind of coming across a bit racist-y here, if you apparently don't have a problem with white standards of eroticisation and suddenly have a problem if the beauty standards are those of PoC.
... i literally scrobbled to the line "literally everything covered with hair" and you don't get the innuendo? Disney announces their first (almost) openly gay character for the third time and it's how that other guy who's swooning for Gaston every minute.
Do you see the three women? Gaston. Fucks.
Can't comment on anything about what you find attractive, but you do you, man!
But just cause you don't find it attractive, doesn't mean it's not there. Don't come complaining to me, if you're underserved, homie. I ain't the problem.
Before that, I was not starting a logical argument. What "logic" have I introduced that you're referencing. You're inventing strawmen. If not: what "logic" are you referencing.
Let's just pretend that this supposed "sensitivity" you're talking about didn't exist: Could you actually explain this supposed "problematic"ness? Because I sure don't get it. What kinds of horrors has watching Lilo and Stitch corrupted in your precious little child's mind?
Not one real person gets objectified here. They're not doing anything erotic, they're just... there. Where's the problem? Should they be wearing Nun-outfits? Sexy Nuns, even maybe?
If that actually were the case: Why would that have been a problem for me? What should it bother you how I've lived through my sexual development?
Also: You do know that a twelve year old has enough people their age where they can watch the whatever teenagers find hot these days? (I would guess thick hips never go out of style)
Umm... ok, so I should not insult it when it's about them being oblivious to things that aren't part of their daily live. But insulting the minor's mind is ok if it's about their precious little minds being corrupted by impure thoughts of "thiccc hips 🍑"? /s Grow up.
You brought up 12 year olds, now I can't say "teenager"? O.o
That kind of sounds like good, old body-shaming to me, buddy.
So now I'm racist for pointing out that the statues are specifically about celebrating fertility? This absurd? You sound like you're yanking out straws just to pin anything on me rather than tackling the point.
First of all, the video started at 0:00, and second of all, how does your point even relate to what I'm saying? Are you sure you're not assuming things? You do realize that my point is primarily about body image and only secondary about serving sexual content to kids?
Literally pulling shit out of your ass.
I can, and that's precisely why I find it problematic. I'm not sure you understand, though, by the looks of the shit you're saying.
Yeah, let's just close our eyes and pretend the problem isn't there. Never mind the fact that the meme itself exemplifies the suggestive poses and one is eagle spread on a surfboard and the other is checking out her ass. And that's not even my point about the messaging to young GIRLS. The lot of you are only defending your own interests here.
Case in point.
Teenage start at thirTEEN. 12 is the upper bound but I've been repeatedly referring to 9 year-olds.
You're so disingenuous and throwing shit at the wall.
What's racist is having a problem with beauty standards from cultures of PoC, while accepting european beauty standards.
The timestamp is 2m05s. Look it up.
So, what's your point exactly? That people with broad hips aren't supposed to be shown? What exactly is your point about the "body image"? You still failed to give a concise answer.
That sure is a way not to respond in an argument. I interpret that as you giving up.
Sure. And I can do one handed pull-ups. I just don't want to. /s
What? She is sitting on a surfboard. How else is she supposed to sit. Have you ever been on a surfboard? And the one shot where she's "checking out her ass" has no sexual connotations. It was cooldown of a tense action scene and shows her being self-conscious about her weight. You probably never watched the movie. So don't just state shit you know nothing about.
Was your point that you're asking creepy questions? Because then I agree. Otherwise, I restate that it's not shameful for (pre-)teens to explore their sexuality at their own pace.
Oh, yeah. Really big difference, Herr Obersturmbandführer of the sematics nazis. /s
So, are you implying that broad hips spoil the youth into being sexually more active at an earlier age? Helen Lovejoy much?
Nah, you're just body shaming and/or a puritan Helen Lovejoy.
The fuck are you on about, did my point really escape you that hard that you have to go all stupid about it? You don't even get it but you keep talking shit and giving shitty arguments. 🤣
Respond to what, your bullshit? Give me a break. You're a pigeon on a chessboard. you don't even know what you're doing.
See? Pulling shit out of your ass again. You don't know me.
Is yours playing stupid?
Not only is your reply shitty af, but like it or not, a year in a child's life IS a big difference. You gotta learn about the developmental cycle somewhere, I guess.
You're literally arguing against yourself. That's note even my point, dumbass. 😂
You never clearly stated your goddamn point, troll.
If I haven't, then wtf are you even defending against? Your imagination? You're all up in arms about it because you know that what you think you're defending is sketchy af. And you're only doing it because you found it arousing.
Sure, Mrs Lovejoy. /s
Those are not sexy, and I would know as a gay man. Try again.
I'm actually with you on this one. However, given that two of the four original images are already from Lilo and Stitch, it's weird that no one has brought up David as the most convenient example of a hot Disney himbo:
I see what you're saying but he's a 6.5/10, especially compared with the women.
My gay friend says they are, so checkmate
Your imaginary gay friend needs some standards.
So does your imaginary gayness