Cucuteni-Trypillian society is believed to have been matriarchal/matrifocal based on available evidence! The artists may well have been women celebrating themselves
True! I was trying to use it in a general sense, like all mankind, while also implying that we've always been horny and chasing after thick thick thighs.
The year is 3000. Sometime in the 2800s, a movement to refer to males as “human”, and thus leave “man” to specifically refer to all mankind, began. Millenia of confusion and infighting swept away, with the last of the etymologists and morphologists pointing out the root meaning of “wo-“ giving it all up in the ‘980s. The world is at peace…
My girlfriend has these thighs. I refuse to let her feel self-conscious about them. I'm "gifted" above and she's "gifted" below and together we've achieved a perfect balance. 👭
I had such confusing feelings about both Robin Hood and Maid Marian… then I learned what “furry” meant a decade later when the internet was a thing regular people could be on! Then I learned people can be bi! That all cleared up a lotttt of confusion hahaha
For some reason, Bugs never gave me any weird feelings! I had a lot of dreams about Tails when I was little though, and I wasn’t even a big Sonic fan. I just wanted to hold his hand and like, go on adventures?
I wonder how much of the furry spawning this movie did has to do with the fact it's also just an unironically good movie. I was immune to it's corrupting influence though, I was too busy trying to figure out if the different animals represented different ethnicities or if they were set for a doomed world due to the fact they couldn't interbreed. I was a weird 4 year old.
I like thighs because I can suffocate in them and the thrill of almost dying by the sea of thighs surrounding lake snu-snu is simply why God made the universe.
That is because all the feminist had been at war with animated women with boobs. So they moderated the boobs and had to make them look feminine some other way.
I really dont care if you agree or not. Its not my idea. Its something I read and agree with. The interview I watched was done by a woman and the consensus was that when drawing women if you can't ignore their natural attributes completely. If this causes some butthurt thats tough.
Edit: Oh and if you imagine the timeline for all of this started in the ealy 2010's then you are really, really young.
I am talking about that image, and what you said initially.
If you have other context... it would make sense to explain or introduce that.
Otherwise, what you are doing is 'oh, my girlfriend goes to a different school, and no, i won't tell you which one.'
The alternative here to you being a confused zoomer, is you being a boomer who i guess cannot comprehend the idea that everyone does not have the same set of knowledge and opinions that you do.
'Oh but the interview! I'm correct because this thing that wasn't part of the conversation, untill now, when I remembered it!'
Nope it was on TV. It was about the Helen Parrs shape in the Incredibles so it was in 2004 or 2005. Do you understand what I said is about the context of why all of the animated female characters for over thirty years have thic thighs and small busts? What I said was giving you context about the imagery and why it ended up that way. You lack context and as a result don't know what you are talking about. You think the timeline for this started in 2010's with the me too movement. You call me either a zoomer or a boomer. You are a millennial and as usual wrong.
Not a boomer millennial. You don't understand that what you are saying isn't anything at all. The movies in the image are prime examples of a shift that occurred before you were capable of comprehending it. Even if you had born yet. You don't get that for me growing up animated women had larger busts. For example: Heavy metal, Aeon Flux and Who framed Roger Rabbit. Then there was a shift away from that to to larger thighs which is what the image is conveying. Its a basic statement about how kids growing up are influence by what they see. One that I made sure my millennial daughter understood and didn't try to bend herself in to a unreasonable self image.
My statement had nothing to do with gamer gate or the me too movement. There had been push back about the over sexualization of animated characters for decades before the movies in the image were made. Things happened before you had matured enough to notice them. Somehow you choose to ignore it since doing so would be admission of an error on your part. That is another error and it is yours not mine.
You don't like what I'm saying but you can't say anything that of any substance against it. You think somehow I'm the one who doesn't understand but its you that don't and now you are angry and trying silence me with some weird statement about accountability. I'm not the one who drew the animated characters I just made reference to something that is easily verifiable if you are inclined to do so. Which you are not. After all you wouldn't want your simple world view to shift.
Someone in this thread has already posted a link about how women are drawn and why they are drawn that way. I don't think you ware willing or even capable of really understand the context of the image above and what it means. Its nothing new and for me nothing unrecognized.
So as you have left me with a curse I leave you with one
Do you mean the few and far in-between women who are like that? These are overstating the frequency of those body types for the sake of sexually arousing grown-ass men. Don't play dumb because you yourself found it sexually arousing at that age.
*Movies...
...that parents also have to watch. Back In the day watching an animated film was a family event. You wouldn't just plant a kid in front of a TV and go do your own thing. Thats why old cartoons are fully of innuendos that only adults would get.
Not just innuendos but themes that are more mature than we would associate with children. Not only for the parents accompanying their kids but good writing makes it possible to teach a young audience about otherwise difficult topics. Kung Fu Panda 2 deals with a whole genocide, for example. The Hunchback of Notre Dame had all that about religious fanatism and the deliberate racial persecution of a certain group of people. Thinking back on it, 101 Dalmatians had a woman chasing puppies to make a coat out of puppies. Innuendos are funny if you look back at them as an adult but that's also what makes movies timeless and rewatchable even after aging out of the main target group.
The fuck they wouldnt. Theyd even bitch at you across the house about sitting to close cause they made you turn the sound almost off cause they were talking.
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.
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 for the sake of being a mean girl and doubling down, dude.
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.
And if we're going to play the it's-ok game, where are the sexy men, then?
Do you not see anything wrong with this imbalance even by your own logic?
What are you even talking about? What do you mean with "my own logic"?
But besides all this, for all the pedophile pearl clutching done around here
And what do you mean by that? Are you seriously insinuating that people overreact over fucking Epstein? O.o
you seem perfectly fine with turning on 12 year-old children.
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.
Edit: Now I found the right words for it: Your urge to shield teenagers from any depiction that's remotely erotic in nature (very remotely) is downright puritan. And I think that's weird from someone who's close to talking pedophile apologia ("pedophile pearl clutching ").
And depicting women with (exaggerated) thick hips is several thousands of years old.
Do you mean the African fertility statues with disproportionate body parts? I hope you realize how that only solidifies my point.
That’s right. There’s absouletly no oversexualized man in animation. /s
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 are you even talking about? What do you mean with “my own logic”?
What do you mean? Can you not follow? Keep up.
And what do you mean by that? Are you seriously insinuating that people overreact over fucking Epstein? O.o
No one is sexually harrassing children.
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.
children that have no interest/concept of sex don’t notice any sexual innuendo (and these body types aren’t even sexual innuendo).
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.
And for teenagers developing their sexual inner-workings: these teenagers
Who is talking about teenagers?
You spread “no sex-ed books for children” energy, homie.
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.
Do you mean the African fertility statues with disproportionate body parts? I hope you realize how that only solidifies 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.
Is that a joke? Gaston is a strong man. What part of his design is specifically sexy and revealing? His forearms?
... 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.
What do you mean? Can you not follow? Keep up.
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.
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.
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?
You all seem to be defending this because you found it sexually arousing at 12 and can't see past that.
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)
Don't insult their intelligence.
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.
Who is talking about teenagers?
You brought up 12 year olds, now I can't say "teenager"? O.o
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.
That kind of sounds like good, old body-shaming to me, buddy.
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 like how 2 shots are from Lilo and Stitch. Like my dude did you forget Atlantis?
Pfft, how could someone do that? It's right next to the pacific
lawdhammercy
And Megara from Hercules.
Mmph, who could forget? 🫦
Long ago in a distant land men created a likeness of their goddess in clay. Their cities and culture were destroyed, but the clay figurines remained.
Cucuteni-Trypillian society is believed to have been matriarchal/matrifocal based on available evidence! The artists may well have been women celebrating themselves
True! I was trying to use it in a general sense, like all mankind, while also implying that we've always been horny and chasing after thick thick thighs.
Is this from Zardoz?
I will have to look up what that is. I just wrote some random bullshit off the top of my head.
Lucky you, enjoy.
The wiki article has this wonderful critique excerpt :
With an ass like that I'd be celebrating myself too!
damn you hypnotic buttocks
Lost deity was thiccccccc
My girlfriend has these thighs. I refuse to let her feel self-conscious about them. I'm "gifted" above and she's "gifted" below and together we've achieved a perfect balance. 👭
As a girl with a great ass, I really appreciate the number busty women who are super into butts
Nice.
“Why do you like anthropomorphic animal-human characters so much?”
wellll it all started in 1973…
Ah, an individual of culture, I see.
I had such confusing feelings about both Robin Hood and Maid Marian… then I learned what “furry” meant a decade later when the internet was a thing regular people could be on! Then I learned people can be bi! That all cleared up a lotttt of confusion hahaha
And how about Bugs in drag..?
For some reason, Bugs never gave me any weird feelings! I had a lot of dreams about Tails when I was little though, and I wasn’t even a big Sonic fan. I just wanted to hold his hand and like, go on adventures?
Garth Algar: Did you ever find Bugs Bunny attractive when he put on a dress and played a girl bunny?
Wayne Campbell: No. [cracks up laughing]
Wayne Campbell: No.
Garth Algar: Neither did I. I was just asking
Bro, I am Bugs in Drag
I wonder how much of the furry spawning this movie did has to do with the fact it's also just an unironically good movie. I was immune to it's corrupting influence though, I was too busy trying to figure out if the different animals represented different ethnicities or if they were set for a doomed world due to the fact they couldn't interbreed. I was a weird 4 year old.
Fun fact: this movie was initially going to be told in a Western setting. That's why the cast has so many cowboy actors.
Man why do i like curvy hips, legs, high heels and red curly hair so much?
Grew up with her, yet I have an aversion to high heels.
These hips don't lie!
Hartman Hips
Misread this as Cartman Hips.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Don't look at me like that
I like big butts and I can not lie!
You other brothers can't deny!
I like tails and muzzles and red heads because of this hottie:
It's not exactly a modern thing tho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf
And me who grew up on anorexic models of the late 80s early 90s likes skinny thighs, thigh gap, a cute perky butt, and small to moderate breasts.
I like thighs because I can suffocate in them and the thrill of almost dying by the sea of thighs surrounding lake snu-snu is simply why God made the universe.
That is because all the feminist had been at war with animated women with boobs. So they moderated the boobs and had to make them look feminine some other way.
Lilo and Stitch: 2002.
The Incredibles: 2004.
The Road to El Dorado: 2000.
The MeToo movement and GamerGate were in like, the early 2010s.
Your timeline here doesn't work. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess most of these movies are older than you are.
Someone posted this, which seems to agree with what they said.
I really dont care if you agree or not. Its not my idea. Its something I read and agree with. The interview I watched was done by a woman and the consensus was that when drawing women if you can't ignore their natural attributes completely. If this causes some butthurt thats tough.
Edit: Oh and if you imagine the timeline for all of this started in the ealy 2010's then you are really, really young.
... Could you maybe provide this interview?
Do you understand how context works?
This is a thread, about an image.
I am talking about that image, and what you said initially.
If you have other context... it would make sense to explain or introduce that.
Otherwise, what you are doing is 'oh, my girlfriend goes to a different school, and no, i won't tell you which one.'
The alternative here to you being a confused zoomer, is you being a boomer who i guess cannot comprehend the idea that everyone does not have the same set of knowledge and opinions that you do.
'Oh but the interview! I'm correct because this thing that wasn't part of the conversation, untill now, when I remembered it!'
Nope it was on TV. It was about the Helen Parrs shape in the Incredibles so it was in 2004 or 2005. Do you understand what I said is about the context of why all of the animated female characters for over thirty years have thic thighs and small busts? What I said was giving you context about the imagery and why it ended up that way. You lack context and as a result don't know what you are talking about. You think the timeline for this started in 2010's with the me too movement. You call me either a zoomer or a boomer. You are a millennial and as usual wrong.
Shut the fuck up boomer, time for bed.
Didn't listen to a fucking word I said, can't take accountability for fucking anything, then you put a bunch of words in my mouth.
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
Not a boomer millennial. You don't understand that what you are saying isn't anything at all. The movies in the image are prime examples of a shift that occurred before you were capable of comprehending it. Even if you had born yet. You don't get that for me growing up animated women had larger busts. For example: Heavy metal, Aeon Flux and Who framed Roger Rabbit. Then there was a shift away from that to to larger thighs which is what the image is conveying. Its a basic statement about how kids growing up are influence by what they see. One that I made sure my millennial daughter understood and didn't try to bend herself in to a unreasonable self image.
My statement had nothing to do with gamer gate or the me too movement. There had been push back about the over sexualization of animated characters for decades before the movies in the image were made. Things happened before you had matured enough to notice them. Somehow you choose to ignore it since doing so would be admission of an error on your part. That is another error and it is yours not mine.
You don't like what I'm saying but you can't say anything that of any substance against it. You think somehow I'm the one who doesn't understand but its you that don't and now you are angry and trying silence me with some weird statement about accountability. I'm not the one who drew the animated characters I just made reference to something that is easily verifiable if you are inclined to do so. Which you are not. After all you wouldn't want your simple world view to shift.
Someone in this thread has already posted a link about how women are drawn and why they are drawn that way. I don't think you ware willing or even capable of really understand the context of the image above and what it means. Its nothing new and for me nothing unrecognized.
So as you have left me with a curse I leave you with one
"May everyone you meet be just like you."
What is up with that? These are kids shows.
Which is why it says "what i grew up with" you dingus
Did somebody summon me?
Huh? I'm rhetorically asking why Disney does this. Why do you feel the need to insult me if you're the one misunderstanding me.
Whats wrong with having thicc thighed women in kids shows?
Micky likes them thicc
Because they're depicting adult women and that's how some adult women are shaped?
Do you mean the few and far in-between women who are like that? These are overstating the frequency of those body types for the sake of sexually arousing grown-ass men. Don't play dumb because you yourself found it sexually arousing at that age.
*Movies...
...that parents also have to watch. Back In the day watching an animated film was a family event. You wouldn't just plant a kid in front of a TV and go do your own thing. Thats why old cartoons are fully of innuendos that only adults would get.
Not just innuendos but themes that are more mature than we would associate with children. Not only for the parents accompanying their kids but good writing makes it possible to teach a young audience about otherwise difficult topics. Kung Fu Panda 2 deals with a whole genocide, for example. The Hunchback of Notre Dame had all that about religious fanatism and the deliberate racial persecution of a certain group of people. Thinking back on it, 101 Dalmatians had a woman chasing puppies to make a coat out of puppies. Innuendos are funny if you look back at them as an adult but that's also what makes movies timeless and rewatchable even after aging out of the main target group.
"Ohana means family, and family means nobody gets left behind."
- Vin Diesel
"I'll kill you with my teacup."
- Lilo
I can hear her say it. Totally in character
The fuck they wouldnt. Theyd even bitch at you across the house about sitting to close cause they made you turn the sound almost off cause they were talking.
And I was a kid when I watched them
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 for the sake of being a mean girl and doubling down, dude.
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.
Edit: Now I found the right words for it: Your urge to shield teenagers from any depiction that's remotely erotic in nature (very remotely) is downright puritan. And I think that's weird from someone who's close to talking pedophile apologia ("pedophile pearl clutching ").
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.
Those are not sexy, and I would know as a gay man. Try again.
My gay friend says they are, so checkmate
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: