Would Disney ever get away nowadays with designing girl leads that show this much skin?

Would Disney ever get away nowadays with designing girl leads that show this much skin?

Not even close.

Yeah, Moana.

Man, early Disney's hip-to-waist ratio game was on point

I don't think so.

Forget the skin. Aladdin just plain couldn't get made today in any way.

Compared to Jasmine and Ariel, Moana is conservative. She doesn't even have an exposed navel.

Yes, but she still shows a lot of skin. Dress is backless, she shows a lot of leg, etc.

She doesn't show her belly but still.

...

80s and 90s Disney girls were the best.

...

her midriff is actually exposed, you just cant technically see her belly button.... and also

Reminder that they re-wrote Belle to be more take charge in the live-action Beauty and the Beast because Emma Watson felt Belle wasn't pro-feminist enough.

Fucking Belle of all characters.

fuuck I miss traditional Disney animation

From all sides too. You'd have conservatives complaining about liberals sexualizing women, and SJWs complaining about society sexualizing women. And religious people complaining about secular society sexularizing women. And secular people complaining about traditional society sexualizing women. Christ, when did liberals, conservatives, SJWs and traditionalists become the exact same thing?

And then Sup Forums complaining about diversity because it's middle eastern because of coarse they would if this was made today.

Moana is about the closest we'll get

>liberals sexualizing women
Where does that happen?

>liberals, conservatives, SJWs and traditionalists become the exact same thing?
Everybody hates women, user. Even women hate women.

>Christ, when did liberals, conservatives, SJWs and traditionalists become the exact same thing?

Never. You just have a very simplified understanding of various groups' more complex thoughts on the idea of female sexuality (and sexuality in general) and its role in society.

I don't hate pretty women.

Often times the word 'degeneracy' has been used online. About how liberals are destroying traditional relationships with their liberal stances on sexuality.

This is bait

Because you are a faggot.

Don't be retarded.

>sexualized female characters shouldn't exist because the images are detrimental to society
>sexualized female characters shouldn't exist because the images are detrimental to society
>sexualized female characters shouldn't exist because fuck the patriarchy
>sexualized female characters shouldn't exist because they're a plot by the mainstream media to introduce degeneracy, undermine Christianity and destroy all traditionalist QTs
The differences aren't really all that important.

>The differences aren't really all that important.

Again, you're vastly oversimplifying the actual concerns and arguments those groups put forth.

/thread
I still can't believe they had the balls to go with this, was it even censored in china or something?

No, seriously, where or when does that happen? Liberals are by and large anti-sex.

Those are the points were all of their objectives and views, however disparate in essence, intersect, however.

>Those are the points were all of their objectives and views, however disparate in essence, intersect, however.

Only in a very simplistic understanding that disregards the vast majority of the arguments those different views generally put forth.

Is Sup Forums full of todlercons or what?

but weren't midriffs a hip thing in the 90's?

You have to ignore...

-What each group considers "sexuality"
-What each group considers an appropriate expression of their definition of sexuality
-How each group feels about how said sexuality actually impacts society
-How each group feels society gets it wrong
-How each group actually feels this is a bad thing
-How each group proposes to resolve the issue

Then the fact that within each group there are multiple ideas regarding all of the above. The statement that many groups are unsatisfied with some vaguely defined thing is such a vague observation as to be meaningless. And not at all indicative that all of them agree or are equal.

Where do you see anything that screams toddlercon in there?

>I still can't believe they had the balls to go with this

You know, only a decade or two ago it wasn't considered CP to show little kids without shirts on.

Boy or girl, they're going to have the exact same thing going on up there.

>Then the fact that within each group there are multiple ideas regarding all of the above.

This s true, but all too often people act like other groups are a uniform bloc with no divergence of opinion. Say you have a guy who is hates liberals because of SJWs so he assumes he is a traditionalist/conservative. But then he goes to strip clubs and gambles. Some conservatives may see that as being a pretty shitty conservative, while some liberals may see that as evidence that conservatives are hypocrites, while other liberals may see nothing wrong with strip clubs and prostitutes. Feminists are especially divided on these issues.

So you got a conservative who disagrees with some conservatives and some liberals, and agrees with some liberals and conservatives. But group-think has us all into neatly defined categories to allow scoring points against the other 'teams'.

No, I know and understand that, I'm not a fucking underage and I've had naked kids running around me since I was 12

But that's obviously not what the US and the big ties think, that's my point
Give me another example of a show made these last 10-15 years with kids in mind showing the nipples of a little girl
Exactly

They were implying that young Moana was disney getting away with something presumably because they find toddlers attractive.

>Baby Moana is practically naked
>Grown up she's wearing garments
Really breaking my balls here Disney

>not understanding the first thing about what's allowed/wanted on TV and what's not
You need to be 18 to post here

He was more implying that she's female and they still showed her nipples

>Give me another example of a show made these last 10-15 years with kids in mind showing the nipples of a little girl

That one scene from Prince Caspian with all the Centaur doing that salute thing had a topless little girl centaur at the very end of it, struggling to hold up her sword.

That's how Disney works now, they receive complaints from every corner of the political idiot spectrum.

They will be simultaneously
>Trivializing women and forcing them to be overly sexualized
>Forcing women into traditional roles and training them to be ignorant housewives
>forcing them to be helpless victims awaiting rescue
>masculizing them into heroes of a story and training girls to be lesbians

While also
>pushing the leftist anti religion agenda
>pushing the pro paganism agenda and teaching satanism and witchcraft
>pushing the right wing moralist agenda
>pushing the right wing minority stereotype agenda
>maintaining the binary gender stereotype
>challenging the binary gender stereotype
>being anti-white with their minority starring films
>being insanely racist against all people of color by making minority starring films


people just love to point fingers and bitch about Disney each time they make anything at all

not really, the current liberal tv watchdog groups are currently doing the 100% same exact behavior that the Pat Robertson right wing watchdog groups were doing around 1990. They basically have the same complaints and shout at the same things, only switch out satan/honosexual for problematic/racist and you pretty much got it.

That was actually a long haired little boy centaur.

...

So Disney did a crossover with Boku and Monstergirls?

>not really, the current liberal tv watchdog groups are currently doing the 100% same exact behavior that the Pat Robertson right wing watchdog groups were doing around 1990.

They're not really the same due to the fact that television/film creatives tend to skew a bit more on the liberal angle and don't generally go on tirades about how the Execs came down on them for material due to liberal watchdog groups complaining. Likewise, conservative watchdog groups didn't do much in the form of actual critical examination or have as much direct impact on how creatives create media so much as they launched massive write-ins to executives in order to get them to change stuff.

>>They basically have the same complaints and shout at the same things, only switch out satan/honosexual for problematic/racist and you pretty much got it.

The complaints aren't the same, as they differ in many ways. The basis of the complaints, the substance of the complaints, the basis of the complaints, and the changes they actually to affect are all quite different.

I used to do pedicures for people. It was the least sexiest job I've ever had.

>B-but MY complaints aren't like theirs!!!! I'm totally different!!!!

Yes, their complaints are different.

>Ankle
Haram

I got the impression user claimed their behavior is the exact same, but what they are railing about changes with the party lines.

But adults combing over children's programing specifically so they can build a moral crusade and bitch and moan in public sounds about right for the lot of them.

>Likewise, conservative watchdog groups didn't do much in the form of actual critical examination or have as much direct impact on how creatives create media so much as they launched massive write-ins to executives in order to get them to change stuff.

He was right about the Pat Robertson thing, the early 90's were rife with protests of kids shows and video games that would not look too different from a Berkley protest of today. It was much more than letter writing campaigns, but that was at the height of the literal witchhunt of the era.

I'm glad be born in the '80.

>But adults combing over children's programing specifically so they can build a moral crusade and bitch and moan in public sounds about right for the lot of them.

Or it can be portrayed as parents being concerned about the media their children are presented with and feeling like voicing their complaints is. You could liken either group to the people who campaigned against blatant marketing aimed at kids in the 80's. You could really liken them to any group of parents who ever campaigned about anything regarding children.

>>He was right about the Pat Robertson thing, the early 90's were rife with protests of kids shows and video games that would not look too different from a Berkley protest of today. It was much more than letter writing campaigns, but that was at the height of the literal witchhunt of the era.

Virtually all protests look the same, regardless of what you're protesting.

It should be noted, however, that the general aims of 90's groups wanted to enact legislative change while stuff like Berkley is aimed more at social change.

yet its getting live actioned

Don't want to really get into it, but there's a difference between sexy women and objectified women. Not that there aren't liberals who get angry over everything including visible ankles.

Yes.

Stop being retarded.

Fuck that's pretty hot

>Give me another example of a show made these last 10-15 years with kids in mind showing the nipples of a little girl

The Loud House. Even if you ignore Baby Lily just being a one year old in a diaper, the second youngest Lisa dressed up as the baby in one episode and theres a photograph of the middle sister Lynn taking a bath with Lincoln when they were younger.

>the Judean People's Front is nothing like the People's Front of Judea.
From inside your group, the differences are massive, but from an external perspective you're the same.

>From inside your group, the differences are massive, but from an external perspective you're the same.

Only from an overly simplified understanding of the subject at hand. Things that even people looking at it from an external perspective are able to see, if they could be bothered.

Didn't ugly feet counterbalanced the sexiness of the job?

What?

Well then explain the difference to us and why the difference matters.

You know they’re going to play it safe

Do you even see that you made three posts amounting to

>When I do it, then it is perfectly fine and understandable
>When they do it, they are disruptive and insane

You are not even trying to hide the total bias here

>Liberals are by and large anti-sex.
what? liberals are about sexual freedom mostly

Liberals are not exactly sane and rational types by a long shot. If you looked at even a second of current news you would have a neverending supply of various examples of liberals fucking up as much as humanly possible for no other reason than to fuck things up.

They absolutely are disruptive and insane

What a fantastic retort user. Well done. You sure showed those insane liberals.

Thing is, I don't have to. They proudly display themselves to be unbelievably fucking stupid each and every day. Not to mention being a part of a party that hates their own nation and wants it dissolves, which will never make sense to me.

it still amazes me that they followed up the nearly-nude Ariel with the exposed-midriff Jasmine
there must have been people thinking at the time that every Disney princess from now on would show skin

>Damn I have to reply.
>But what should I say.
>I'll just double down on my bullshit and hyperbole.

You don't actually have to reply you know. You don't win Sup Forums points for speaking last.

Bye.

Where have I said that any specific side was better/worse than the other? Was it when I compared modern parents and 90's parents to 80's parents? Or when I pointed out that various protests have different aims even though they all consist of people marching, yelling, and carrying signed (i.e. protesting)?

I've only pointed out that no matter what you feel about the professed beliefs and goals of various groups, that those beliefs and goals are indeed different so that they can't be dismissed out as "being the same" unless you're being willfully (or actually) ignorant.

You people are so pathetic how defensive you get whenever your escapism is targeted.

Well. Belle did marry an abusive boyfriend

They have to. Don't you know? ISIS has hackers now.

Yes but the character can't have a pretty face or nice body.

Apparently developing an idea and a brain and being smart and into reading isn't feministy enough.

More likely they cut out scenes like Belle crying because they viewed it as a weak trait for a girl.

Ironic considering the same people are trying to encourage men to be in touch with their feelings.

Conservative here, sexualizing women is normal and healthy.

Different user, but why do people target escapist fantasies in the first place?

Have you noticed that every recent illustration of Belle wearing her ballgown that Disney uses in its advertising avoids showing her cleavage?

Jasmine, no fucking way. Ariel, probably. She's a mermaid, that's how mermaids dress is everything. There are books meant for toddlers where mermaids dress like that.

He has a good point. Here's a fucking foreign show about natives that gave all the males nipples but not the girls

What can be "gotten away with" is quite arbitrary and random. Most likely it's just a question of being bold enough to do it, because let's be honest: who would have the guts to raise his hand at the meeting and say "I think we need to discuss the little girl's nipples"

Did they make her not move in with the abusive animal who literally emotions her? Or did they just do a gay dance number?

Get rid of the mods and make this board red and you'll find out EXACTLY what Sup Forums, if not all of Sup Forums, is about.

>The complaints aren't the same, as they differ in many ways.
Forests, trees, missing, blah blah blah, yadda yadda.

Late 80s to early 90s was the height of degeneracy

Moana showed quite a bit of skin. Hell, they had her completely topless when she was little

Aw, some people say that about everything. The hippie era was the height of degeneracy. Avatar Korra was the height of degeneracy. Foreign clothing styles was the height of degeneracy. In other time periods, before the 80s and 90s, no adult frontal nudity= no problem. And often it was for comedy.

Of course not.
Stop reminding me of how much better things were in the 90s compared to now.
It depresses me.

Pffff.
Unlike Jasmine and Ariel, she had no sex appeal.

I bet that user checks under his bed for liberals every night.

I hear ya, Beelzebub ol' buddy.

You just say that because you're too old to get your first childhood boner, but I swear to god that you will see people who will see her as their first boner.

>No sex appeal
I find her more attractive than the other 3D female leads

Yes they were. The really cool girls dressed like Jasmine. Tops and Jeans. Even landwhales showed their midriff off. Navel piercing was the shit (obviously they couldn't do it in Aladdin).

i think that image is more a reflection of skyward sword which created the expectation of zelda being a pussy "again".

This is not true but older heroines were sexier for sure.