Hey guys, it's Celestia, and today's topic is one that I've been wanting to discuss for a while now,
because I've seen a lot of very mixed opinions about it, and god knows I have enough of my own.
I mean, what DON'T I have unnecessarily loud opinions about, really. But this one, unlike my
passionate stance on the right temperature of drinking water or the proper use of escalators,
is probably relevant enough to make a whole video about, so I'm going to. Now, people being mad about
artists drawing characters too sexily is not a new phenomenon by any means - the controversy
surrounding art with too much titty is far from new, and the people that are mad about it have
a wide, wide variety of reasons for that rage, ranging from "how dare you put a boob window in
my good, Christian sweater" to "hey, how come female characters are drawn in bathing suits and their
male counterparts have full suits of armour?" Which is, effectively, to say that those arguments also,
consequently, vary quite severely in terms of how valid and reasonable they are.
But while the majority of the people upset about it were formerly women wanting adequate equality
in their representation in art, parents who thought Lola, the sexy fish from Shark Tale was going to
corrupt their children with her feminine wiles, and pretentious artists trying to devalue NSFW
or even just suggestive art altogether, that's no longer the case. It's everyone now. Don't
get me wrong, it's fantastic that the internet has allowed us all the opportunity to voice
our thoughts more accessibly and loudly than ever. It's great, it's awesome, but just like it enabled
and worsened cancel culture, that accessibility and ease has also enabled and worsened the general
public's ability to gatekeep what artists are allowed to draw, and how they're allowed to draw
it. I'd say "take a shot every time I say 'thanks, Twitter' in a video, but I'd actually rather you
didn't die. Point is, the internet has, with all the entitlement of the five-year-old brat that it is,
decided that it needs to take policing art one step further than people were already taking it.
And subsequently, you can't scroll for longer than five minutes without seeing
fanart of sexy Princess Peach with throes of people either simping for it or condemning it with
the force of a thousand suns. And again, I don't think they're all being unreasonable, not at all;
there are a lot of perfectly valid and important arguments being presented against certain aspects
of character sexualization through art, but there are a lot more of the dumb ones, and
even the good ones shouldn't give anyone the right to feel justified in sh*tting on people for
drawing that art. But I'll get into that more in a minute here, because there's a surprising amount
of nuance that needs to be considered. Before I do, though, I want to make one thing clear about
the statement I just made. While I do believe that sexy art should have the right to exist
regardless of the validity of the criticisms made against it, I am exclusively referring
to art of adult characters. I think I've made my stance on sexualized art of underage characters
abundantly clear in the past, and despite 4chan's best efforts, that hasn't changed in the slightest.
Sexualizing adult characters through art is fine, even if there are some instances in which I will
concede that the criticism of it is reasonable, but if those characters are kids, you know exactly
where I stand on that. And we're not talking about it again. Anyway, when it comes to this topic, people
who take issue with the sexy art generally fall into two categories: people who have a problem with
sexualized art in general, and people who have a problem with sexualized character design.
Basically, someone getting mad at the not-canon depiction of sexy Princess Peach, versus someone
getting mad at the unrealistic and unreasonable sexualization of Lara Croft's character design.
And I'm gonna say this right now, I think the first group of people are dumb. That's just my
opinion, obviously, but I can't think of one single justifiable reason to look at sexy fanart of an
existing character and find that to be morally condemnable, or even worth criticizing, honestly.
The only argument I'll give any credence to is that artists who draw that kind of work
are selling out and pandering, because yeah, in some cases, that's true. But who cares? Sex sells - everyone
knows that, and if a professional artist decides to draw a corresponding art to make better money, who
are you to sh*t on them for that? I'm so f*cking tired of hearing people justify gatekeeping what
art is real art and what isn't, and sexualized art is always one of the first to get thrown under the
bus when it comes to that. An artist is not less good or valuable because they decide to use their
skill to make money off of a profitable market, and they should not be demonized for cashing in
on a good, easy way to pay their bills. No one can say what art is real art, and that's a topic I'm
going to discuss in its own video soon, but it's just exhausting to see people like Sakimi-chan so
consistently called talentless hacks for drawing sexy fanart. And even beyond that, like-- if it's not
even about the money and people are just bothered by artists drawing this sexy art in the first
place, like-- who are they hurting? How is it harming anyone for someone to draw Princess Peach with her
boobs out? I can understand the concern with women being sexualized comparatively more in art than
men, but that doesn't mean that the people creating that content should be blamed for that. It walks
the exact same line that I discussed in my video about body type representation: yes, people with
larger body types receive less representation in art than thinner people, and yes, that is a problem
that we should be aiming to fix. But the random individual artists out there just trying to draw
characters they like or that are in their comfort zone should not be held responsible for that.
Independent artists everywhere should not be tasked with providing representation for everyone
like professionals should, at least in my opinion, especially when they're just drawing what they're
drawing for fun. And the same can absolutely be said about this issue: it's not the fault of the
artists who like drawing sexy ladies that there is more art of sexy ladies than men or other genders,
and they should not be tasked with providing that variety and representation if that's not what they
want to draw. It's a problem, yeah, but they're not responsible for solving it. But just like
with that topic, it becomes more cloudy and nuanced and difficult to judge when the issue of character
design is brought into play, because then we DO have to consider representation. It's not the job
of individual artists to provide representation, but if the lack of it is a problem, SOMEONE has to
be responsible for providing it. And I obviously can't say one way or another who SHOULD be
responsible for that, but I can at least say that in my opinion, it's not unreasonable to expect
companies and professional artists in positions to provide that adequately diverse representation
to do so, and to do so better than they currently are. Which is basically what I said in that video:
that essentially, in my opinion, individual artists shouldn't be shamed for not drawing
diverse body types, but professionals should be expected to provide better representation in
their professional work. And this also applies to sexualized character design in two primary ways:
a responsibility not to provide negative representation, and a responsibility to provide
accurate, realistic, and diverse representation. These responsibilities are naturally a big source
of a lot of contention surrounding sexy art, so let's get into how and why. In terms of negative
representation, let me explain what I mean. First of all, designing sexy characters? Not a problem. Not a
problem in my opinion, anyway, as much as I'd like the power and authority to assert that as fact.
Make the sexiest characters you want if that's your vibe, and f*ck anyone who says otherwise. But
if you're only making your female characters sexy in unreasonably revealing clothing while your male
characters are wearing realistic, full-body armour and look scary, or intimidating, or even average, or
whatever else -- THAT becomes a problem, because it basically paints women as being hot first
and characters second. Their identity is primarily defined by how hot they are if their gender is the
only one that's being sexualized, with any other features or personality or individuality being
rendered all but irrelevant, at least visually. It's not just female characters that fall victim
to this, either, like-- name one non-binary character that's coded as hot or sexy. I'll wait. I'm joking,
please-- please don't, I'm sure some exist and I don't want 80 comments calling me a dumbass,
but the point is that there are not many. So while women and non-binary people DO get representation
in character design, negative representation in it impacts both, because if done wrong, it paints
a picture of women as being valuable first and foremost as sex objects, and non-binary people as
only being recognizable and readable as non-binary if they're completely sexless. Which is why I
propose that we just make everyone sexy! I'm joking, again, but for real, I think equality is the main
issue here: if you're designing a character to be sexy specifically because of their gender, I think
that's absolutely worth criticizing. If you're designing a character to be sexy because you
want them to be sexy, irrelevant to their gender, I don't see any problem with that. I think League of
Legends is a good example of this, because Riot has received a lot of very warranted scrutiny for this
issue over the years, but there are still some examples of things they've done right in this
capacity, too. So let's look at Fiora and Garen: both from the same region with the same fashion,
both melee champions, both fight with swords - albeit very different types of swords, and subsequently
swordsmanship - but I think it's more than clear enough by looking at them that Fiora, by way of
simply being a woman, was designed to be vastly more sexualized than Garen. That, in my opinion, is
an example of negative representation resulting from sexualized character design. The same could
be said of a comparison of Akali and Zed: both assassins from the same region with the same
fashion, but Akali is wearing f*cking nothing. Or comparing Miss Fortune to Gangplank: same region, both pirates,
but one's wearing something that could absolutely never be expected to support one single boob, and
guess their gender. There are also examples of what I mean in terms of FAIRLY sexy: look at Taric, or
Varus, or Viego. If there were more male characters like them that were just as unreasonably sexy
as their female counterparts, I think their representation in the game would be a lot
more balanced - not that Riot Games is particularly familiar with the concept of balance. I just wish
characters could be designed as sexy because they're supposed to be sexy, because that's a part
of their identity, and not a result of their gender. Another good example would be Zer0 and Lorelei
from Borderlands: they're both non-binary, and they're portrayed completely differently. Zer0 is
wearing full-body armor, and Lorelei is clearly designed with an emphasis on being hot as hell.
It is not impossible to sexualize characters regardless of their gender, and I think Borderlands
did a great job with that. Furthermore, on the topic of negative representation resulting from
over-sexualization and character design, something that I feel isn't discussed enough is what
drawing a character as sexy - or as deliberately NOT sexy, contrarily - is intended to portray. What I mean
by this is that a lot of the time, even when gender isn't a factor, characters who are designed to be
hot are defined by being hot. If they're drawn as sexy, they're taken less seriously - they're less
intelligent, they're less formidable, they're more shallow, they're vapid, etc. If they're drawn as ugly,
formal, conservative, covered-up, unprovocative, and so on, they're taken more seriously and seen as
more intelligent, more no-nonsense, and so on. Like, f*ck, give me more Olivier Armstrongs: hot as hell,
intense, intimidating, intelligent, could absolutely step on me, career-oriented--
my point is that these things should not be mutually exclusive. A character shouldn't be
made less sexy to be taken more seriously, and they shouldn't be seen as less serious or intelligent
because they ARE sexy. Let people be hot and smart or dumb and not conventionally attractive.
What's so hard about that? I don't know, I just-- this negative representation does no one any favors by
associating hotness with foolishness and vapidity or by associating modesty with intelligence and
seriousness, and is really exhausting to see. Next, in terms of oversexualization and character
design art having a responsibility to provide more realistic and diverse representation, I have...
mixed opinions. And I guess that's because there are quite a few different issues that play with
this one, too, the most prominent and significant of which being a lack of realism in overly sexy
character designs, and the lack of diversity in overly sexy character designs. And you know what?
I take it back. Taking a shot every time I say 'thanks, Twitter' won't kill you nearly as quickly
as taking a shot every time I say 'so let's get into that next'. ...So let's get into that next.
Don't take a shot. First of all, the lack of realism in overly sexy character designs. Let's go back to
League of Legends for a second for this -- sorry, I know it's the worst game in the world, but it's
both relevant to the topic and something that I'm unfortunately very familiar with. Many people take
issue with the fact that many characters like Miss Fortune or Katarina, the former of whom I
mentioned earlier, are designed to be hot at the expense of any semblance of realism. Like, look at
Katarina compared to Talon: Talon is dressed like he walked out of Assassin's Creed, which he should,
because he's an assassin. Katarina, also a goddamn assassin from the exact same place, looks like
despite her occupation, any tiny stab wound to her thoroughly uncovered torso and chest, where all of
the important organs are -- where ALL the organs are -- would kill her, because there is nothing to
stop it from doing so. And it's something that's seen time and time again in popular media: female
characters will be designed as wearing vaguely metallic swimsuits and six inch heels, and we're
expected to believe that they're warriors and assassins and experience absolutely no detrimental
effects from these ridiculous outfits despite that profession. Let me reiterate: there is nothing wrong
with designing a character to look like a stripper. But if that character is also one that is intended
to be very active, agile, and in physical danger, I don't think it's unreasonable to criticize them
being designed to look like a stripper when, realistically, that outfit would make what
they do more dangerous, more difficult, or even impossible. But conversely, the issue with this
is that art shouldn't always HAVE to be realistic. Like, look at Garen again: he's not oversexualized,
but he IS still unrealistic. I'm pretty sure that if he were confined to what's actually
possible in real life, he wouldn't be able to MOVE in that armor, much less wield that monster of a
sword. But that doesn't mean his fictional design as depicted in this art is problematic because
it wouldn't work in reality. I understand that it's different when the reason for the lack of
realism is sexualization rather than badassery based on the exact points I've already made, but
if the only problem people have with this is that it's not practical or realistic, I just--
you guys know that half of these characters are mages or elves or orcs, right? Your primary concern
is the realistic nature of their bra support or heel height and not their sorcery or wings or
pointed ears? Come on. Things don't always have to be realistic in art - that's why it's art. Of course,
I do understand that there are exceptions to that, which brings me to an example I used earlier:
Lara Croft. She is a character that is based in a non-fantasy world that is supposed to be realistic,
but her character design is anything but. Or at least, it was in the beginning. It's gotten a
little better, but... It's not practical, it's not realistic, and someone in her position
would absolutely never wear that. And in cases like that, where a character's design is supposed to
be realistic, practical, feasible, and true-to-life, having them be designed so overtly sexually anyway
with no regard for that realism is, admittedly, incredibly frustrating. It's even more frustrating
because it's done infinitely more often to female characters than any other demographic.
I will at least say, before moving on, that at least in Lara's case, they did break the mold in one way:
she's sexy, but she's also intelligent, formidable, independent, and strong. They didn't make her one
or the other, they made her both, and we love to see it. Anyway, moving on from the lack of realism in
sexy character design, let's talk about the lack of diversity in sexy character design, which is
a lot more straightforward, at least in my opinion, and it boils down to the fact that the word sexy
alone already conjures one singular image in most people's heads: either a thin woman that
is also impossibly curvy, or a man with muscles that are more defined than a human body can even
accommodate. And that's because the majority of mainstream art has defined it that way. I'm not
saying that we should go around Zeefixesart-ing and making conventionally attractive characters
less conventionally attractive for the sake of representation, because I think we all know
why that's dumb as sh*t. What I AM saying is that when professional artists depict hotness
in their characters exclusively as exaggerated, conventionally attractive features, it furthers
the belief that being sexy means having the most societally revered body type, and nothing else.
Like f*ck, are you gonna look me in the eye and tell me Lizzo isn't hot? Not if you value your life.
But rarely do character designers depict her body type as such, at least not compared to the number
of Miss Fortunes and Katarinas, and that's another problem: not that the characters are drawn as
deliberately attractive, but that deliberately attractive is being depicted as only one
body type. Draw characters with all body types as sexy, cowards. Do it. Finally, last point on the
topic - this doesn't pertain to the rest of these issues directly, or even tangentially,
really, but can we talk about weirdly sexualized animals in art? Like, I mentioned Lola from Shark
Tale earlier, but she's one of many. Like, why is this fish coded to have boob-like anatomy? Why
are animals in kids cartoons weirdly curvy just so they can be read as female? F*ckin'
Dory from Finding Nemo doesn't have makeup and impossibly long eyelashes or weird boob-like mounds,
and she is still understood as female. In kids movies? Really? I'm not on board with the parents
that think those designs are corrupting the youth of America or some sh*t, and I'm not saying
it shouldn't exist, I'm just... confused. I don't understand it. I don't get it. It just seems so... low
effort and borderline uncomfortable. But that's just me, I don't know -- we've long since established
that I'm unnecessarily passionate about irrelevant opinions by now. So in conclusion, is sexy art bad?
No, sexy art, in my correct opinion, is not bad. Draw hot Princess Peach -- better yet, draw hot Rosalina.
No real reason, she's just my favorite. Just maybe try to draw a wider range of body types as sexy,
don't be so sexist about it, and if you're a professional, at least try to make some kind of
effort to make people Equal Opportunity Sexy, and perhaps consider not making all sexy characters
shallow, or all smart or strong characters modest and conservative. But either way, it's not okay to
police what art is and isn't acceptable just because you personally take issue with it, so
long as the characters that are being drawn hot are adults. You not liking it, regardless
of why you don't like it, doesn't make it fine to harass or condemn the people responsible for
drawing them that way. But what do you guys think? These are all just my opinions, and I'm sure yours
probably differ greatly, so I'd love to hear them. Anyway, thank you for watching, and
special thanks as always to channel members Cafe Soleil, Joseph Solomon, and Unknown Code,
as well as patrons Batman, Kyle Low, blueswanson, thisistotallymyname, Uni Tea, and
Cora Feere for their support. I hope you enjoyed today's video, and I'll see you in my next one!