
So glad I took the time to make my earlier replies.
I agree, which is why I was happy that Nani in "Lilo and Stitch" was a woman's real shape for once. I also feel it degrades women when these cartoons show off as much skin as some of them do. I'd have a hard time believing that Jasmin and Ariel haven't had some impact on how 20 and 30 somethings women dress today. I won't say it was all them, but I bet it has been one of the many factors.Scarred4life wrote:Cartoon or not, it is still sending out the message that girls should aspire to be this thin. And can you honestly tell me that little girls don't want to be like the princesses? They look at these characters and admire them. They want to be princesses, they want to be like Ariel. Girls are going to look at Ariel and say 'I want to look like that'. They are influenced by her just as much as by the girls in magazines. Probably more, considering they 'know' Ariel, in a sense. Being constantly bombarded by both unrealistic images from both magazines and their favourite films are doing harm. How can you say that unrealistic body shapes are okay in animation, but not okay in magazines?
Other than that shutterstock logo, nope. not photoshopped. Also that's averagely normal body for teenage girls which is what Ariel is: A 16 yr old teenage girl.Goliath wrote: Yeah, but at least she's got a middle that keeps her chest from falling off, unlike Ariel.Still, that's very thin. Are you sure that picture isn't photoshopped? The middle looks... I dunno, the curve seems strange. She's got a beautiful face, though. <3
Nice Ass, bewbs, and vagina.enigmawing wrote:
Not really. Unless we're talking about Gaston. Then that's a whole another story.Scarred4life wrote:Cartoon or not, it is still sending out the message that girls should aspire to be this thin.
I have to disagree very strongly here. I don't think it's up to men to judge how girls/women dress. Obviously, when a girl is very young, parents should have a say over it because otherwise it can be inappropriate (Cyrus sister flashback!), but otherwise I'm in no position to judge what is or isn't "modest" or "degrading" on women's clothing. It all depends on your values. If you're a very conservative person, you'd think Jasmine's costume is not appropriate. If you're very liberal, like me, you see nothing wrong with it. Ultimately, what's "degrading" to women can only be judged and decided by women themselves; each and every one of them individually.milojthatch wrote:[...] I also feel it degrades women when these cartoons show off as much skin as some of them do. I'd have a hard time believing that Jasmin and Ariel haven't had some impact on how 20 and 30 somethings women dress today. I won't say it was all them, but I bet it has been one of the many factors. [...]
I know she's a young teenage girl and so is Ariel, but I still thought the curve seems a little odd. Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. Not that she's unattractive or anything... By the way, I would edit out the c-word if I were you. I don't think that's appropriate and not allowed here.Super Aurora wrote:Other than that shutterstock logo, nope. not photoshopped. Also that's averagely normal body for teenage girls which is what Ariel is: A 16 yr old teenage girl.
Again, the difference is in the perception of reality. I don't think I was smarter than the average child and I knew better even back then. I was quite aware that cartoons weren't real, but looking at a realistic airbrushed image would have probably been a different story. Once again, at least when it's a cartoon the untrained eye can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. I've also worked closely with children for several years, including many young girls that admired the princesses and played plenty with Barbies. In fact the only time I ever remember a character's figure being an issue was when one of the fifth grade boys wanted to know why Elastigirl's butt was so big.Scarred4life wrote:Cartoon or not, it is still sending out the message that girls should aspire to be this thin. And can you honestly tell me that little girls don't want to be like the princesses? They look at these characters and admire them. They want to be princesses, they want to be like Ariel. Girls are going to look at Ariel and say 'I want to look like that'. They are influenced by her just as much as by the girls in magazines. Probably more, considering they 'know' Ariel, in a sense. Being constantly bombarded by both unrealistic images from both magazines and their favourite films are doing harm. How can you say that unrealistic body shapes are okay in animation, but not okay in magazines?
Who's talking about any of this? Not me, nor did anybody else who was criticizing Disney's heroines for being too thin. You know, it always strikes me how much more dramatic staunch 'defenders' of Disney are, than people who criticize Disney. They always blow every little hint of criticism of Disney into enormous proportions, like you are doing now. It seems like, to some people, every fair and reasonable criticism of Disney (even when it comes from people who actually love Disney, like me) has to be ridiculed and made into something which it's not... like suggesting I want to censor Disney. The term 'politically correct' gets horribly abused these days by people who can't take any criticism; it's their catch phrase to toss out against people who disagree with them.Marce82 wrote:Also, are we going to start censoring Disney movies based on what the public thinks is appropriate or healthy? I believe the Disney Artists balance very well their responsibility to the public and their artistic integrity.
THis is, again, trying to get political correctness take charge. Why don't we just tell hollywood to make full figured women the object of every leading man's affections, animated or not?