> From the above post. I realize that "sexualized" is subjective but that's how it looks from my pov.
What, exactly, about this image seems "sexualized" to you?
This is a con badge from a Fairy Tales themed convention. The artist drew my fursona in the style of Little Red Riding Hood--a fairy tale deemed appropriate by most parents for young children.
There are no genitals depicted in this drawing. There's no secondary sex characteristics being emphasized.
No reasonable person would look at this cartoon image and think, "Oh, this is sexualized" UNLESS they had a pre-existing cognitive distortion to assume "furry = sexual". But that's a false equivalence.
but... you had to go looking for that one, skipping over the part where you saw a bunch of waist-up pictures of a cartoon canine and got too hot and bothered to continue reading? it's not linked from the original article
I'm not saying your POV is wrong. I'm asking you to explain it.
EDIT: Since you edited your comment, I'll edit mine.
> I wouldn't open this blog at work. I certainly wouldn't buy a children's book with this type of art in it.
Why not? I don't see anything wrong with this blog post. I'd happily share it with colleagues and coworkers alike because it's useful information.
The only crowd that might take offense to the content here are cryptocurrency enthusiasts, because of the shade thrown at secp256k1. But, personally speaking, I'm okay with them being upset with me for sharing a link to such a thing.
> You must have to admit that little red riding hood is usually depicted a lot more modestly.
I'm not sure the same rules of clothing apply to cartoon animal characters as to real-life humans.
I certainly don't shriek if a coworker posts a picture of their pet cat at work without the critter being fully clothed.
What are the standards you're applying to this situation?
Also, the image you linked isn't included in the blog post about elliptic curves, so it's a bit weird to cling to it in defense of your initial reaction.
