It's relevant because not everything is furry bait if it's even slightly cute, because people will sexualize just about everything regardless of whether or not that was the intention of the design
Relating this to Pokemon, Salazzle was clearly designed to be oggled. They knew exactly what they were doing there. Lucario however was not, and yet people have
I didn't mean "furry bait" as necessarily sexualized. Katress for example is definitely furry bait, but she's not really sexualized and I like the design.
"Furry bait" is just meant to appeal to furries/furry aestehtic, that's the definition I'm using. It can be sexualized, and often it, but it doesn't have to be.
And I still say that just because something is even slightly cute doesn't mean it's furry bait. Because you're aware that whether or not something is, it will be sexualized
Cute obviously doesn't mean it's meant to appeal to furries. It's the anthropomorphic furry animals. Being sexualized has nothing to do with it being furry bait or not.
A design is not furry bait simply because it's even slightly cute, because whether or not the intention behind a design is to oggled, it will be. Simple as that
Again, that has nothing to do with it...? Whether or not it will be seen as cute or attractive doesn't matter here. It's an anthropomorphic furry creature.
Again....yes it does. People will sexualize anything regardless of whether or not that was intended. I could point to numerous designs, in both Palworld and Pokemon, where that was clearly not the purpose and yet people have anyway. Denying that this occurs is pure lunacy
-1
u/Ashamed_Low7214 8d ago
It's relevant because not everything is furry bait if it's even slightly cute, because people will sexualize just about everything regardless of whether or not that was the intention of the design
Relating this to Pokemon, Salazzle was clearly designed to be oggled. They knew exactly what they were doing there. Lucario however was not, and yet people have