Note that this is not a trick question or a need for validation; I need honest opinions. It’s a genuine frustration.
I like drawing figures with (disproportionately) big breasts, not necessarily for erotica. And every time I draw such a figure in any setting, people seem to see it as sexual.
I don’t believe any certain body type is inherently sexualized/erotic/pornographic, because it would be extremely rude and discriminatory to the real people who have that body type(including me). But people seem to perceive it as such, which gives me anxiety and frustration.
I want to draw what I want without caring about such matters, but I don’t want to unnecessarily trigger people at the same time. However, I sometimes genuinely cannot tell which drawing of mine is sexual and which is not when the figures have big breasts.
In the realm of art, should I just accept that drawing big breasts(and hips, etc) is inherently sexual? If not, do you have any general tips for drawing such characters without making people uncomfortable?
Problem with this is that is kinda subjective and also often depends on where you come from.
There once was a good rule of thumb that what you can see on a public beach is okay. Well, where I live public beaches are full of basically nude people of all genders and ages and there is nothing inherent sexual about it. No one really bats an eye when a woman is sun bathing or swimming bare breasted. So long as they still wear pants of some sort and be it the tiniest ones. So from my point of view and how I was raised, as long as there is no actual sex going on nor focus on primary sexual organs, it is fine. But on the other side of the pond in the US you can’t even be shirtless in your own garden or nude in your own home, especially not women. It’s not fair and it is challenging on the internet where there are no borders and many cultures coming together. This often results in the most prudish rules to be applied. Like on Facebook a naked leg can be enough to get your photo removed, let alone a nipple.
It’s hard when there is something you like painting and then you can’t show it to everyone, I know how this feels sometimes.
Edit: To be honest, I had to check a few times because I didn’t even see the difference at first and was about to write that both links go to the same file x3.
I’m from the UK.
I haven’t voted because for me, it’s not all images are ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Most of the images on the page are not particularly sexualised, they just have big boobs. But there are two poses on the page that were quite suggestive in their posing and outfits, and when you add the big boobs to it, become very sexualised.
One is the middle left with the bunny outfit. It looks sexualised to me because the outfit is sexy, she’s sticking her butt right out and her nips are sticking out.
The other one is the lady towards the bottom grinning right into the ‘camera’, she’s wearing the tiniest string top and doesn’t appear to be wearing any pants (underwear).
So I guess for me, it’s not the fact they have big boobs that makes it sexual, it’s the outfit and posing, which would be sexual no matter what size the chest area.
For the record, I don’t find any of it offensive or negative in any way. I grew up watching Manga. It’s just my opinion on what the difference was for me between a figure who happened to be naked, and a figure who looked sexualised.
I wouldn’t say any of it falls into the realm of erotic or porn though.
@acc4 This is my opinion… and I voted. Any art that presents the beauty of the human form in natural poses with breasts and/or genitals exposed is not sexualized. Even if it’s simply a study of human genitalia by itself, is still not sexualized because it’s not attached to any context implying sex or arousal.
However… here’s where I think it becomes sexualized…
Artwork (frequently anime) of very young under-age girls with enormous breasts are often depicted in suggestive poses, innocent expressions, and lots of tight and/or undone clothing. Its purpose seems to be to elicit sexual arousal in the viewer (and probably the artist as well). To me, this is not appropriate and I have my own opinions on the motivation of the artist(s) that concentrate their talents on drawing these kind of sexualized under-age characters. Many I’ve seen are obviously exceptional artists, but waste their talent if that’s the only thing they create, IMO.
If the characters were mature looking beautiful women/men… no problem whatsoever. Just put it in NSFW. I’m not a prim and proper prude by any means, but most people know I’m not a fan of T & A art simply because the majority of it casts women in a sexualized role. But when they make them look like innocent 10 yr old girls with 50lb pendulous breasts in provocative poses, It’s just not acceptable even in NSFW if you ask me. But then.. that’s just me.
Thanks for your 2 cents. But that’s another discussion.
I was talking about mature figures with curvy body types, and how not to trigger people or make them uncomfortable by drawing them.
People (even prudish ones) generally seem to concede that proportions or size of the body parts are not inherently sexual. However, speaking from experience, even just plain standing/daily poses often get negative reactions when the figure is disproportionally curvy. And it’s really frustrating, and I’m not sure how to get around that when I want to draw freely with different body types.
@acc4 You are right that body types themselves are not inherently sexual or pornographic; in visual media, such qualities are dependent on presentation and context. Neither of the example images are pornographic, because the characters genitalia are either covered or nonexistent. Neither of the images are sexualizing either, because none of the characters’ poses suggest fornicating or an intent to fornicate. Although, the criteria which I use are, evidently, incongruent with some others’.
I don’t feel that either of these are inappropriate. I do believe its more about the context, like others have said. Perspective is mostly about how we’ve come to be and what we’ve learned in the world.
On the other hand, there is information on primal instinct type behaviors and triggers. Not sure how much of it is actually correct/true/genuine, but there have been various studies trying to figure why people pick who they pick and why attraction happens and so forth. Perhaps there is some certain figure that just resonates. Then depending on how we’ve been brought up or are other beliefs that come into the mix.
The reason why I voted is because of the sheer size of those breasts. People like seeing what is the “average” of the human experience. In this case, the average size of breasts is between a b cup to a d cup, with the d-cup being considered “big.”
The breasts on the second pic are more like f-cups. The demographics of women with an f-cup is very small. So when the general population looks at a drawing like those, they automatically categorize it as “not average,” which makes them think it’s sexual when it’s really not.
@acc4 , no, I don’t believe big breasts in themselves are inherently sexual.
From reading your other reply I think we’ve split into talking about 2 different things here. You wrote:
I think there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with that body type and there would be nothing automatically sexual about them.
However, what I was commenting on, were the figures you attached as your examples showing young, slender anime girls wearing next to nothing with disproportionately large and gravity defying chests.
It’s not the big breasts on their own that make those figures sexualised, but the sexy ‘come and get me’ pose, the next to nothing clothing and, on the bunny outfit girl, the erect nipples. This invokes the idea that either she’s aroused, or you’re trying to elicit arousal in the viewer.
When it comes to the question “is this figure sexualised?”, in my opinion there’s a big difference between a mature figure who just happens to be curvaceous with a large chest, and young skinny anime girls with huge boobs wearing tiny string bikinis with erect nipples sticking their butts out in provocative poses.
Again, nothing wrong with it. But yes, I found those particular two figures to be rather sexualised for those reasons.
Thanks for the kind reply. I can respect that you feel they are sexualized because of the attire and poses.
If you don’t mind: I have a few more questions because you seem to have a pretty clear standard, which I might be able to benefit from getting some hints for my original question in my head. (Note that you don’t have to reply if it bothers you. :>)
You’re mentioning ‘skinny anime girls with huge boobs’. Aside from the poses and attire, are you sure that you don’t think the sexualization is also coming from how the sizes of the body parts are proportioned?
*If you think that certain body types(e.g. skinny body with disproportionately huge breasts) are sexual, it’s fine. My autistic mind is just a bit confused that you claim that body has nothing to do with it, but it still seems to be partially about body.
There is a lot of things to deal with here and this is quite complicated.
Yeah it is sexual because people just find big breast quite sexual. But, here is the thing: sexual doesn’t mean it is not okay. Like, a curvy woman wearing a figure hugging red dress is incredibly sexual but most people would have no problem with that. This goes with male figures too, like illustration of topless men.
So, when does sexuality becomes unacceptable? The lines is kinda blurry here but it mostly have to do with arousal. Here you have some complex elements to sift through. Men are kinda easily aroused by typical female indicators like breasts and buttocks so illustrations that emphasize them could easily cross the arousal border and be considered not appropriate. And what better way to emphasize them than to make those parts big?
Well, I tell you. They are all sexual. That is just what we perceive it as. But is it uncomfortable? Unacceptable? Depends on the people, culture and other elements. The more sexuality is emphasized, the more people becomes uncomfortable with it.
Yeah, you should just accept that they are sexual. You just have to accept that there would be a level of sexuality for depicting a very sexual figure… and I don’t really see anything wrong with it. Most people are actually fine with a bit of sexuality.
As how to keep people from getting uncomfortable, just keep sexuality to a certain level. Like, for well endowed figures keep the pose (like jutting out the chest) and camera angle (looking down the breast) to be less sexual. A lot of these poses and camera angles are ok for less endowed people because there is little perceived sexuality in the figures, but with the generously endowed figures, it puts the sexuality level way up. This happens with your two examples. The two examples are technically sexual as the clothing, poses and angles are designed to be sexual but most would not find any issue with the first one. The well endowed version however adds on top of that and push the sexual level to be way more than some people are comfortable with.
And… because we are flawed and filthy human beings, there are actual people who find the skinny skeletal figures very arousing. Others find the morbidly obese, fat-dangling-everywhere figure very arousing. Some even find tortured, bruised, blo*dy figures arousing… you get my point. Many others would not find those things sexual in any way but to some others…
Agree with other points, the poses make saying yes/no more difficult. If you consistently draw unrealistic proportions in every picture people will assume you are fetishising those aspects. In your case the proportions are thin all over except with breasts that kind of resemble overfilled water balloons. Also, the added emphasis on the nipples, and hotspots on both skin and fabric! (comeon dude…) I think in reality the appearance of bigger breasts is just more body fat, and if its not distributed in the way we expect it looks odd like it’s being forced by the artist for some reason.
I would say a solution would be to avoid drawing a distinct intermammary cleft (the intergluteal cleft is also not exempt), mainly at angles where it makes no sense, and under clothing. Also if clothing is both baggy, and stretched by things underneath you’re going to have people assume your intentions. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying don’t express yourself but don’t be surprised at the reactions you may receive
There’s a lot of good answers already, but to me it depends on which aspect of the figure is emphasized. If it feels like the traditionally erotic attributes are in the forefront and everything else is there just to support it, then it is sexual with a likely intent to cause excitement in the viewer.
If you’re asking specifically about Krita forums, then maybe see if your artwork stands out a bit too much. Ultimately, we don’t need to share everything here and some pieces are probably better posted elsewhere
I feel like people are more sensitive to these “obvious” sexual attributes, but it goes beyond that. For example, and I’m not sure if it’s just my weird take, but to me anime style aimed at a certain demographic (let’s say seinen) is inherently suggestive or at least maintains a certain level of this sexiness. I get it why it may bother some people because many characters are not adults (e.g., they still attend school), yet this art form requires some hallmarks. Like for example, the thighs need to be plump, and the clothing needs to bite ever so slightly into the soft skin. Why emphasize that if not to stimulate your imagination a bit?
Sorry for any confusion. I guess what I’m saying is that big boobs on a skinny frame in themselves are not necessarily sexualised. What makes it sexualised is the emphasis put on them by the artist. Big or small, if you emphasise and draw special attention to the chest area in the way we discussed, then you are sexualising it.
However, yes, I do find that disproportionately sized boobs - ones that are so big they’re simply unrealistic - are perceived as automatically sexualised because why else would the artist go to such trouble to draw them? They’re usually accompanied by other attributes such as stretched out clothing and other details to draw the eye.
The poses from the links you provided do not look sexualised to me. They look like artistic poses (not provocative ones), and even though some show what look like unclothed chest areas, they are realistic looking and not emphasised to draw the attention to that area.
I would say that the presence of the breast or not change nothing on the drawing you present here.
Because if you analyse the position of the characters they all have very explicit body postures: (the man on top left show is ass, most of the girls characters are bending over to present the chest part over the viewer and i will not mention of the girl with open arms where the lines directly focus point on breast !)
So yes those drawings are highly focused on breast and butts because they force the eyes to go in that direction !
But is a big breast is more sexual than a small or absence of breast.. No that depends of your erotic tastes i think.
