• DaGeek247@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Nah, it’s pretty obvious the cheetah is wearing skin tight clothes for asthetic reasons. It might have been habit rather than design, but the artist definitely chose to draw titty-shaped torso rather than cop-shaped torso.

        It’s not even fucking close either. They drew more titty shape than literal fetish wear shows, much less an actual cop.

        • flicker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I dunno. I’m a woman and I didn’t notice the skin-tight thing until it was pointed out, but looking back at it, wouldn’t any clothes do that at 90 mph?

          ACAB but it doesn’t look horny to me. She’s just woman-shaped to me.

          • ameancow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I genuinely cannot believe that people still care about this in the year 2024.

            Like, does anyone care if people draw animal people looking cute or sexy or just with human proportions or anything in between? Does it really bother anyone or is it just fun to try to bandwagon something that freaked some housewives out in the 90’s because some inside edition episode? It’s just drawings of animal characters like have been done for literal millenia. Imagine if some of the more “notorious” disney films came out today, people would lose their minds.

            • El Barto@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Oh yeah, because when I see Egyptian hieroglyphs, I think sexy beasts.

              The point is not the anthropomorphism. The point is related tothe deliberate sexual undertone. And I’m not even a prude. I don’t care much about what people prefer. It’s just that the Internet broke us.

              It’s like the word “cuck” (ugh.) A scholar may use it in the utmost right context, and yet, all that word does is infuriate me because of the overuse the The_Donald crowd gave to it.

            • DaGeek247@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Woah, hey, easy there. You’re starting to take this personally. Dial it back a little.

              I genuinely cannot believe that people still care about this in the year 2024.

              Nobody cares that it’s a horny image. This is the internet in 2024. The artist just managed to hit that sweet spot of genuine effort + not quite skilled enough = unintentionally hilarious. It’s bad movie night, but for comics.

              We’re all laughing at the stripper cop who the artist genuinely expected us to take seriously, not complaining that there’s clutches pearls big titty cheetah cops!

              Imagine if some of the more “notorious” disney films came out today, people would lose their minds.

              You mean like zootopia?

          • DaGeek247@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            wouldn’t any clothes do that at 90 mph?

            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe, but it still managed to not look right despite that. It feels more like a failure to communicate speed with the art rather than intending horny anyways. That’s part of the problem though. The image looks horny first, and speedy second, or really even third.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            it doesn’t look horny to me. She’s just woman-shaped to me.

            An animal. Shaped as a fit, sexy woman. Shared on Lemmy. Yeah, not horny. Sure.

        • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          You can’t really compare real life people’s proportions to a cartoon of an anthropomorphic animal. To me its clear there was no intention for this image to be sexual at all. And believe me, if a furry wanted to draw something suggestive, there would be no discussion as to its horny status. They aren’t known for subtlety.

          • DaGeek247@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            To me its clear there was no intention for this image to be sexual at all.

            You’ve missed the point; it doesn’t matter if the author intended to draw a horny photo. I already agreed on that point in my above comment. The point is that the situation makes no sense for a horny image, but it still looks like one anyways.

            You can’t really compare real life people’s proportions to a cartoon of an anthropomorphic animal.

            I can when the animal has bigger tittys than most strippers do.

        • Klear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          To be fair, the tiny waist is pretty accurate to how to the animal looks. Giving the cop big titties and skin-tight uniform might actually be the best way to portrait anthropomorphised cheetah.

      • QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You expect me to look at a shirtless deer in denim jeans with with a buff chest and choker and a cheetah in a skintight uniform with big tiddies and a fat ass and supple thighs and not become aroused? Sicko

      • Bongles@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think they got as far as the cheetah having breasts and have been conditioned by the internet that this means furry. Which is fair.

      • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes. Replace the cop’s head with a human head, and say she’s wearing gloves. Now you have a sexy cop.

        I have to agree with OP’s assessment.

          • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            lol indeed! I thought of adding “remove the tail” after posting, thinking that maybe no one would notice, but I was wrong.

          • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            The only “sexy” character is a gazelle, in which being sexy is the point - not because it’s furry, but because it’s part of the story (they could have been humans, robots or books and it would have been the same - a sexy character must be conveyed as sexy somehow.)

            But nope, zootopia is not horny. I guess you’re referring to Judy, who is a law enforcement officer and she looks fit. She doesn’t look sexy, though, or “humanly sexy.” That would be… gross, considering it’s a children’s movie.

            • magi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              So in that light, what makes this horny? All I see are anthropomorphic animals, with anthropomorphic figures. Calling this horny just seems as if you’re fighting some attraction. Have you, truly, ever stepped outside and seen a womens figure? Are they just horny bait to you?

      • Klear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Did you not notice what’s on the deer’s head?

        Well, those are actually antlers. Fuck.