Even pornographers have tended to notice that specific features do genuinely attract a, real, no shit, "male gaze". In animation and art, these features can be accentuated for story-telling and audience rapport purposes. The most commonly understood one is eyes that draw focus and express emotion. All humans are drawn to looking at eyes for communicative purposes. Both men, and women, can reference eyes for sexual desire as Jordan Peterson notes.
For these MLP characters, no seduction is present as it is in the Lion King, but the ability to emote through facial expressions (especially through the animators particular use of vector animation which generates very smooth movements) is very important for story telling purposes, because fluid facial movement is very good at conveying expression and emotional state.
Now, if you wanted to destroy MLP's ability to convey human emotion properly, the easiest way to do it would be to use actual horse pupills, which are horizonal ovals. In reality, it's excellent for enabling the horse to see behind itself without turning, and it gives it a nearly 180 degree cone of vision, which is absolutely stellar in the animal kingdom. But humans have no real capacity to read horizontal eyes for emotional information.
Now, as for the concept of the characters themselves, the characters are designed to be at least relatable characters with genuine personalities, though they are still stereotypes that can be used as a frame of reference for story telling purposes. Frankly, this is just basic bitch character development. The problem, as you pointed out is that the Left uses cultural mechanisms to either preach ideology (which allows for unrealistic portrayals: see Falcon-Winter Soldier), or preaches Mary Sue Power Fantasies (Captain Marvel). Neither of these are relatable characters to all but the most ideologically possessed individuals.
The more the Left harps on it's ideology and identitarianism, the less capable it is of telling genuine stories. When Feminism is pushing the concept of how women should be portrayed, men get repulsed. So, in MLP you have genuine and affable female characters promoting strong values, and low-and-behold, men are drawn to that more than being a degenerate slut, an angry bitch, or a Mary Sue.
If you won't let men objectify women, they will womanify objects to suit their purposes instead.
I absolutely agree. I don't remember where I've heard a version of this before, but that's precisely what's happening on a socio-cultural scale.
I think it was something more like: men don't want to objectify women, it's that the closest thing to women that men have are objects.
The point is that the destruction of women's femininity has actually damaged men along with women.
Yeah, I can't remember where I heard the line about objectification, but I can't take credit.
But it is definitely true that it is a deeply and instinctually meaningful thing for men to provide resources to and defend something, whether that's a woman, a tribe, or a country. Now in the age of feminism and globalisim, it's sexist to provide for a woman and racist to support your country in any but the most superficial way.
It really shouldn't be too surprising when men spend their time, money and affection on an anime or video game character, a pet, a car, a motorcycle, a boat, or any other number of things they are passionate about instead of chasing women.
I think it has something to do with the concept of an animus that Jung talks about. Effectively, the optimal thing for a man is to basically transform his female lover into his animus, which he then uses to drive himself forward. Part of the interesting feminine aspect of this relationship, is that women have to actually figure out if they could, or should, become a man's animus to drive him forward for her and their family.
Simping is effectively a way of a woman being a man's animus with zero actual responsibility to him, which is why it is an inherently abusive relationship.
Oh, you're actually talking about the concept of anthrophomorphized characters given human traits and personalities.
To be honest, that should be obvious to anyone.
Animators and artists know precisely what they are doing with the concept of developing any anthrophomorphized character in an aesthetically alluring way. That doesn't mean that Tex Avery here wants you to fuck gazelles and reptiles. In fact, it shows the opposite: you want to fuck traditionally attractive human females. ... but you knew what you were doing, animators...
Even pornographers have tended to notice that specific features do genuinely attract a, real, no shit, "male gaze". In animation and art, these features can be accentuated for story-telling and audience rapport purposes. The most commonly understood one is eyes that draw focus and express emotion. All humans are drawn to looking at eyes for communicative purposes. Both men, and women, can reference eyes for sexual desire as Jordan Peterson notes.
For these MLP characters, no seduction is present as it is in the Lion King, but the ability to emote through facial expressions (especially through the animators particular use of vector animation which generates very smooth movements) is very important for story telling purposes, because fluid facial movement is very good at conveying expression and emotional state.
Now, if you wanted to destroy MLP's ability to convey human emotion properly, the easiest way to do it would be to use actual horse pupills, which are horizonal ovals. In reality, it's excellent for enabling the horse to see behind itself without turning, and it gives it a nearly 180 degree cone of vision, which is absolutely stellar in the animal kingdom. But humans have no real capacity to read horizontal eyes for emotional information.
Now, as for the concept of the characters themselves, the characters are designed to be at least relatable characters with genuine personalities, though they are still stereotypes that can be used as a frame of reference for story telling purposes. Frankly, this is just basic bitch character development. The problem, as you pointed out is that the Left uses cultural mechanisms to either preach ideology (which allows for unrealistic portrayals: see Falcon-Winter Soldier), or preaches Mary Sue Power Fantasies (Captain Marvel). Neither of these are relatable characters to all but the most ideologically possessed individuals.
The more the Left harps on it's ideology and identitarianism, the less capable it is of telling genuine stories. When Feminism is pushing the concept of how women should be portrayed, men get repulsed. So, in MLP you have genuine and affable female characters promoting strong values, and low-and-behold, men are drawn to that more than being a degenerate slut, an angry bitch, or a Mary Sue.
I absolutely agree. I don't remember where I've heard a version of this before, but that's precisely what's happening on a socio-cultural scale.
I think it was something more like: men don't want to objectify women, it's that the closest thing to women that men have are objects.
The point is that the destruction of women's femininity has actually damaged men along with women.
Yeah, I can't remember where I heard the line about objectification, but I can't take credit.
But it is definitely true that it is a deeply and instinctually meaningful thing for men to provide resources to and defend something, whether that's a woman, a tribe, or a country. Now in the age of feminism and globalisim, it's sexist to provide for a woman and racist to support your country in any but the most superficial way.
It really shouldn't be too surprising when men spend their time, money and affection on an anime or video game character, a pet, a car, a motorcycle, a boat, or any other number of things they are passionate about instead of chasing women.
Seems healthier to me than simping, in any case.
I think it has something to do with the concept of an animus that Jung talks about. Effectively, the optimal thing for a man is to basically transform his female lover into his animus, which he then uses to drive himself forward. Part of the interesting feminine aspect of this relationship, is that women have to actually figure out if they could, or should, become a man's animus to drive him forward for her and their family.
Simping is effectively a way of a woman being a man's animus with zero actual responsibility to him, which is why it is an inherently abusive relationship.