Current Events > Sooo, why is Lola Bunny over-corrected?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Doom_Art posted...

do people who say this not realize how dumb they sound lol

like this is like "70 year old Boomer"-tier kinda shit

"Sex is bad" was heretofore associated with the 1950s and with attempts of white males to control women. Toady, sex is bad because it's progressive to hate sexualized characters.

Some producers got caught in sex scandals, made sex in movies bad, and everyone forgot about it overnight. I can't enjoy bunny boobs because some asshole producer couldn't keep his hands to himself and people have the attention span of goldfish when it comes to holding people accountable for their actions. It actually has little if anything to do with equal representation.

Men are as sexy as they ever were.

Doom_Art posted...

do people who say this not realize how dumb they sound lol

like this is like "70 year old Boomer"-tier kinda shit

Well explain how they literally go put their damn way to tone cartoon women down or straight up cancel them? Doesn't sound dumb to me at all.

---

BabyRoxann posted...

Nobody with normal adult sensibilities would care about this

Thats like saying nobody with adult sensibilities would care about anything unfavorable in fiction.

---

superman 2000 posted...

Thats like saying nobody with adult sensibilities would care about anything unfavorable in fiction.

I mean, caring about a cartoon rabbits bust size is different than caring about a statement made in, say, a political fiction book or something. So... bit of a stretch.

BabyRoxann posted...

Its saying that caring about a cartoon rabbits breasts is not a normal thing adults would be concerned over.

And again, thats like saying nobody should care about fiction in general. All Im doing is questioning the over-correction.

---

superman 2000 posted...

And again, thats like saying nobody should care about fiction in general. All Im doing is questioning the over-correction.

What's the question again?

---

R_Jackal posted...

I mean, caring about a cartoon rabbits bust size is different than caring about a statement made in, say, a political fiction book or something. So... bit of a stretch.

People are allowed to question things, both big & small. The logic being used to say why I shouldnt question this particular thing is flawed.

---

superman 2000 posted...

thats like saying

Lol no it's not

---

Darmik posted...

What's the question again?

Im questioning why they got rid of her boobs with the logic of trying to make her less sexual, as if having boobs at all is automatically sexual.

---

superman 2000 posted...

Im questioning why they got rid of her boobs with the logic of trying to make her less sexual, as if having boobs at all is automatically sexual.

I'm just in awe that an adult spent an entire afternoon/evening sticking with this dumb argument lol

---

Doom_Art posted...

Lol no it's not

It is.

---

superman 2000 posted...

Why do all of you assume I am an adult?

Your account is like 17 years old lol

That's another dumb question

---

Doom_Art posted...

I'm just in awe that an adult spent an entire afternoon/evening sticking with this dumb argument lol

It's not dumb.

---

Yes it is

---

Doom_Art posted...

Your accountvis like 17 years old lol

That's another dumb question

I don't think every user clicked on my account to verify this before assuming. That would be a weird thing to do.

---

Doom_Art posted...

Yes it is

I disagree.

---

superman 2000 posted...

I don't think every user clicked on my account to verify this before assuming. That would be a weird thing to do.

Not as weird as your silly lil questions

superman 2000 posted...

I disagree.

Doesn't matter tbh

---

Actually, I'll bite: What's dumb about it, @Doom_Art ?

---

Doom_Art posted...

Not as weird as your silly lil questions

Doesn't matter tbh

Well, that was a productive exchange.

---

superman 2000 posted...

Im questioning why they got rid of her boobs with the logic of trying to make her less sexual, as if having boobs at all is automatically sexual.

Because the only Looney Tunes characters who are given breasts is to highlight their sensuality. Girl characters who aren't don't have breasts.





The question you should be asking is why does Lola have breasts but Penelope does not?

superman 2000 posted...

It's not dumb.

Isn't it though?

---

Why are you curious about it?

---

Darmik posted...

Because the only Looney Tunes characters who are given breasts is to highlight their sensuality. Girl characters who aren't don't have breasts.

This argument assumes that any female Looney Tunes character with boobs only has them to be sexualized. The existence of boobs in & of themselves do not automatically make a character sexualized. For example,




---

Like it's just bizarre to see him going back to it continuously

It's obvious he doesn't actually believe any of it but tbh that makes it kinda weirder.

---

Doom_Art posted...

Like it's just bizarre to see him going back to it continuously

It's obvious he doesn't actually believe any of it but tbh that makes it kinda weirder.

I do believe what I'm saying. You've yet to clarify what about my argument is dumb.

---

superman 2000 posted...

This argument assumes that any female Looney Tunes character with boobs only has them to be sexualized. The existence of boobs in & of themselves do not automatically make a character sexualized. For example,

Literally looking at her breasts in the image. The most generous interpretation you could give to his gaze in this screenshot is that he's looking at her feet or that it's some sort of "schllucks, we're wearing the thame thing".

Darmik is correct.

---

superman 2000 posted...

This argument assumes that any female Looney Tunes character with boobs only has them to be sexualized. The existence of boobs in & of themselves do not automatically make a character sexualized. For example

Your example is from after Lola Bunny and yeah as pointed out her sex appeal probably is a factor. But I haven't seen that series so I can't say.

Explain why Lola Bunny has boobs and Penelope does not.

---

superman 2000 posted...

I do believe what I'm saying

LOL

superman 2000 posted...

You've yet to clarify what about my argument is dumb.

You've yet to earn the right to an explanation

---

VanananaHeyHey posted...

Literally looking at her breasts in the image. The most generous interpretation you could give to his gaze in this screenshot is that he's looking at her feet or that it's some sort of "schllucks, we're wearing the thame thing".

Darmik is correct.

Not sure if you're joking or not. I hope you are, because that is some impressive sarcasm.


---

I do have masterful sarcasm, and, despite being probable that Daffy is looking at her skirt, I don't think your image actually proves your point nor disproves Darmik's.

Darmik is correct.

---

Doom_Art posted...

LOL

You've yet to earn the right to an explanation

So basically, you're just here to be rude. Yeah, think I'd rather be weird than an asshole.

---

VanananaHeyHey posted...

I do have masterful sarcasm, and, despite being probable that

You just lost all credibility. It's very obvious that that's what Daffy is looking at.
Also, assuming you understand the rules of basic logic, I objectively proved Darmik incorrect.

---

superman 2000 posted...

I objectively proved Darmik incorrect.

Now whose attestations of credibility must be taken as sarcasm? Jeezy petes, bro.

---

VanananaHeyHey posted...

Now whose attestations of credibility must be taken as sarcasm? Jeezy petes, bro.

This board is an interesting place.

---

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why Penelope doesn't have boobs but characters like Lola need them.

---

Darmik posted...

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why Penelope doesn't have boobs but characters like Lola need them.

Your argument was that female Looney Tunes characters with boobs only have them to be sexualized. I showed you an example of a female Looney Tunes character with boobs who isn't sexualized. Now you're moving the goalposts.

And anyway, Penelope is a nude character. A female character obviously isn't going to be bare-chested with boobs.

---

superman 2000 posted...

Your argument was that female Looney Tunes characters with boobs only have them to be sexualized. I showed you an example of a female Looney Tunes character with boobs who isn't sexualized. Now you're moving the goalposts.

I don't think your example showed that at all.

superman 2000 posted...

And anyway, Penelope is a nude character. A female character obviously isn't going to be bare-chested with boobs.

Hmm now it's getting interesting. Why is Lola a clothed character when most Looney Tune animals are nude?

---

I blame the furries

---

Guaranteed 500 topic here

---

BlackHorse6969 posted...

I blame the furries

Ugh, it's kind of a chicken/egg thing. >:(

---

Darmik posted...

I don't think your example showed that at all.

Why are you dragging this out by being intellectually honest, needlessly? Melissa Duck is a looney tune. Melissa Duck has boobs. Melissa Duck isn't a sexualized character. Therefore, Melissa is a looney tune with boobs who isn't sexualized. Your previous assertion was incorrect. Let's move on.

Hmm now it's getting interesting. Why is Lola a clothed character when most Looney Tune animals are nude?

The same reason Porky Pig wears a shirt and bowtie: it's what the artists desired. You're essentially asking, "why do some characters look different than others?"

---

superman 2000 posted...

Why are you dragging this out by being intellectually honest, needlessly? Melissa Duck is a looney tune. Melissa Duck has boobs. Melissa Duck isn't a sexualized character. Ergo, Melissa is a looney tune with boobs who isn't sexualized. Your previous assertion was incorrect. Let's move on.

Even then the example is from a recent Looney Tunes show to fit the style already established by Lola.

superman 2000 posted...

The same reason Porky Pig wears a shirt and bowtie: it's what the artists desired. You're essentially asking, "why do some characters look different than others?"

Now ask yourselves why the artists 'desire' the things they do and maybe you'll figure it out.

Penelope shows just fine that Looney Tunes can depict animals as female without boobs and swaying hips and she is a significantly older character than Lola. Is bringing Lola back to a consistent artstyle with the other Looney Tunes that bad? Melissa isn't in this new movie as far as I know so she'd be the only odd one out.

---

Darmik posted...

Even then the example is from a recent Looney Tunes show to fit the style already established by Lola.

This is assumption. Some female characters simply have breasts and aren't sexualized. It's harmless.

Now ask yourselves why the artists 'desire' the things they do and maybe you'll figure it out.

We know that Lola was deliberately designed with sex appeal in mind for the original Space Jam. The writers of the sequel have stated that they want her to be less sexualized, so they understandably took away her sultriness. I just find it weird that they also got rid of her boobs, because there's nothing about her having boobs that inherently means "sex appeal". Therefore, I feel it's an over-correction.

Penelope shows just fine that Looney Tunes can depict animals as female without boobs and swaying hips and she is a significantly older character than Lola. Is bringing Lola back to a consistent artstyle with the other Looney Tunes that bad?

Lola being a clothed character with generic boobs wouldn't be out-of-place in the Looney Tunes universe.

---

issa damn rabbit.

---

superman 2000 posted...

We know that Lola was deliberately designed with sex appeal in mind for the original Space Jam. The writers of the sequel have stated that they want her to be less sexualized, so they understandably took away her sultriness. I just find it weird that they also got rid of her boobs, because there's nothing about her having boobs that inherently means "sex appeal". Therefore, I feel it's an over-correction.

Again she would literally be the only Looney Tune with human anatomy like boobs. Don't you think that's odd? Don't you think it's odd that the only Looney Tunes animals who have boobs are Bugs and Daffy's girlfriends? You don't think there's a reason for this?

---

females can't be sexy no more

---

Darmik posted...

Again she would literally be the only Looney Tune with human anatomy like boobs. Don't you think that's odd? Don't you think it's odd that the only Looney Tunes who have boobs are Bugs and Daffy's girlfriends?

No, because that's just how most female animal characters are anthropomorphized; they're usually given realistic hair (not just elongated strands of fur/feathers, like Bugs & Daffy), a bosom, some clothes (to at least conceal the bosom), eyelashes, and sometimes lipstick. And that's when they're not just female versions of the male character with a bow (ala Minnie Mouse).

---

Don't mind me. Just posting in a 500 topic.

superman 2000 posted...

No, because that's just how most female animal characters are anthropomorphized; they're usually given realistic hair (not just elongated strands of fur/feathers, like Bugs & Daffy), a bosom, some clothes (to at least conceal the bosom), eyelashes, and sometimes lipstick. And that's when they're not just female versions of the male character with a bow (ala Minnie Mouse).

Why doesn't Minnie Mouse or Daisy Duck have boobs?

---